JUDGEMENT 1. The interlocutory application has been filed seeking amendment of the relief portion in the writ petition so as to quash that part of the order of the Collector-cum-Chairman of District Compassionate Committee, Muzaffarpur, by which the claim of the petitioner for being appointed on Class IV post on account of death of her father has been rejected, as contained in Memo No. 310 dated 28.3.2007 (Annexure-6). 2. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, since the said order has been passed during pendency of the writ petition the prayer for amendment is allowed. 3. I.A. No. 2067 of 2009 is, accordingly, disposed of. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State respondents. 5. The petitioner seeks a direction for quashing the order dated 28.3.2007 in so far as it relates to the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of her father. 6. The case of the petitioner is that her father died on 26.3.1990 while working as Peon in the office of the Deputy Director, Agriculture Weights & Measures. Muzaffarpur, leaving behind his widow and two daughters, of which the petitioner is the younger one. the elder daughter having been married prior to the death of their father. On such death the petitioner filed application for appointment on compassionate ground. It is the admitted case of the parties that she was unmarried at the relevant time when she filed her application for compassionate appointment and she was Class-VII pass. The matter was delayed at the level of the authorities in processing the same and correspondence continued between the authorities for making enquiries as to whether the petitioner was unmarried or not and was involved in any criminal case or not and it was reported by letter dated 16.5.1997 (Annexure-3) of the Circle Officer, Tetria, that the petitioner was unmarried while her elder sister was married. Thereafter the matter continued to be delayed compelling the petitioner to come to this Court in the year 2006 by filing the instant writ petition seeking direction upon the respondents to consider her application for appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter the matter continued to be delayed compelling the petitioner to come to this Court in the year 2006 by filing the instant writ petition seeking direction upon the respondents to consider her application for appointment on compassionate ground. During the pendency of the writ application in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent authority the decision of the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting dated 27.2.2007 was brought on the record which was communicated by Memo No. 340 dated 28.3.2007 of the District Magistrate-cum-Chairman of the said Committee, by which the case of the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that she was C!ass-VII pass and was married. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of death of her father and at the time of filing of her application for appointment on compassionate ground she was unmarried and much later in the year 2001 she got married. It is contended that the factum of marriage which took place in the year 2001 many years after her application could not be a ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner as it is the authorities who have compelled the said situation to arise on account of the extreme delay caused on their part in considering her case for compassionate appointment. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner is also a very poor person and they are living hand to mouth. 8. With regard to the rejection on the ground of her not having passed Class-Vlll, it is submitted that at the relevant time when she applied for appointment on compassionate ground death of her father on Class-IV post in State Government, the qualification for appointment on such post was only Class-VII pass which was subsequently by Circular No. 3577 dated 25.4.1997 issued by the State Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms raised to Class-VIII pass. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner has to be considered only with reference to the date on which her father died or at worst on the date she filed the application for appointment on compassionate ground and not on any later date. 9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for compassionate appointment on the ground of the petitioner being married and not having requisite qualification. 9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for compassionate appointment on the ground of the petitioner being married and not having requisite qualification. According to him the respondent authorities have rightly rejected her claim for compassionate appointment. 10. This Court finds sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not open for the authorities of the State to so delay the consideration of the application for compassionate appointment as to practically compel a girl to remain unmarried for an indefinite period of time. It is not the case of the State respondents that the petitioner was married when her father died and application was tiled for compassionate appointment. It is admitted by them that as late as on 16.5.1997 when the report of the Circle Officer was received she was still unmarried. In the said circumstances, it is not open for the State respondents to reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground that she has much later married and has thereby become disqualified for being appointed on compassionate ground. 11. So far as the rejection on the ground of not having passed Class-VIII is concerned, there can hardly be any doubt that the requisite qualification for compassionate appointment at worst has to be considered on the basis of the law prevailing on the date the application has been tiled. It is evident that the decision of the State Government raising requisite qualification for appointment on Class-IV post from Class-VII to VIII pass has been taken much later on 25.4.1997; whereas the petitioners father died in the year 1990 and the application was filed soon thereafter and much prior to the decision of the State Government. 12. In the said circumstances, the claim of the petitioner has to be considered at worst in terms of the law prevailing regarding qualification required for appointment on Class-IV post on the date of the application filed by her for compassionate appointment. 13. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the writ application is allowed. The impugned decision of the District Compassionate Committee dated 27.2.2007 as communicated by Memo No. 340 dated 28.3.2007 of the District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Muzaffarpur is quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioner. 13. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the writ application is allowed. The impugned decision of the District Compassionate Committee dated 27.2.2007 as communicated by Memo No. 340 dated 28.3.2007 of the District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Muzaffarpur is quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioner. The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in accordance with law and in the light of the ob- servations made in this order.