JUDGEMENT Dipak Misra and Ravi Ranjan JJ. 1. The writ petitioner-appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3403 of 2009 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The short facts necessary for consideration of this appeal are as follows: The petitioners father, late Jaga Rai, who was working as Chaukidar, died in harness on 3.9.2002. The petitioner approached for his appointment as Chaukidar on compassionate ground. His name was also proposed by his mother and brothers for such appointment. On 17.5.2003, the Officer Incharge of the Police Station concerned sponsored the candidature of the writ petitioner-appellant. Other Officers also made recommendations on different dates, which have been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. However, no appointment letter could be issued to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner could get a copy of Memo No. 252 dated 25.2.2008 issued by the Deputy Collector, Incharge of the District General Establishment Cell, Saran, Chapra wherein it has been disclosed, in view of the query of the petitioner dated 25.1.2007 and 18.1.2008, that his application for appointment on compassionate ground had been rejected by the District Committee on 12.12.2005 itself. A copy of the aforesaid memo dated 25.2.2008 has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The appellant challenged the rejection of his claim of appointment on compassionate ground by filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 3403 of 2009 which was dismissed by the order dated 23.3.2009, which is under challenge in this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant and the State and perused the records of this case. 4. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the factum of rejection of his claim was never communicated to him and after getting such knowledge from the Memo No. 252 dated 25.2.2008, the petitioner had preferred this writ petition. Therefore, there is no question of any delay and laches on his part. So far production of false certificate is concerned, it had been submitted that the same had been handy work of some mischievous persons, however, he offered an unqualified apology before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, there is no question of any delay and laches on his part. So far production of false certificate is concerned, it had been submitted that the same had been handy work of some mischievous persons, however, he offered an unqualified apology before the learned Single Judge. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the false certificate was produced for the purpose of getting employment before the authorities, it cannot be held to be any form of cheating as the same has not caused any harm to any other person. The appellant has placed reliance upon a few decisions of the different High Courts in this regard to demonstrate that when a person attempts to get job by making a false statement, the element of fraud and dishonesty cannot be read into that. It was further submitted that the petitioner had made the application for appointment within the statutory period of four years. The petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Single Judge of this Court rendered in Triveni Devi V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. 2007 (Supp.) PLJR 234. 5. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the writ petitioner-appellant had produced false documents for getting appointment and, in fact, he had not contested the issue by saying that the documents produced by him were not false, rather, he had tried to explain the same by saying that this was done at the behest of certain mischievous persons. However, at the same time, the petitioner had claimed that he is capable of reading and writing which falsifies his claim as he must have filed his application fully knowing the facts described therein and the copies of the documents attached therewith. That apart, it has also been urged though the writ petitioner-appellant had made an application for such appointment on compassionate ground as back as in the year 2003, he only made a query on 25.1.2007 and 18.1.2008 as would be evident from Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby he had been informed that his appointment has been refused by the concerned Committee on 12.12.2005 itself. It had been contended that, in that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the writ petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches. It had been contended that, in that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the writ petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches. It had also been urged that it is well settled preposition of law that scheme of compassionate appointment is only for the purpose of tiding over the sudden loss and financial crisis due to the death of bread earner of the family. However, due to the passage of about six years since the death of the father of the petitioner-appellant in the year 2002, that crisis cannot be said to continue and by the lapse of time such appointment cannot be considered at the present point of time. 6. We find force in the submission made on behalf of the State. 7. The writ petitioner-appellant does not claim that the documents filed by him were correct and genuine. However, he had made an excuse for that by saying that the same had been done by some mischievous person, though he also claims in this appeal that he knows to write and read. He had also tendered apology for that. That apart, though, he had applied for such appointment in the year 2003, yet he did not care to make any query for about 5-6 years and lastly, as noticeable made query in the year 2007- 2008 and was informed about rejection of his claim due to production of false documents. This clearly goes to show that such endeavor of the petitioner is hit by doctrine of delay and laches. The Apex Court in State of Maharashtra V/s. Digambar, reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1991, has held that such relief cannot be granted to a citizen if his claim suffers from the vice of delay and laches. 8. Apart from the above, it is also apparent that the petitioner had not applied for appointment with clean hands rather he had taken recourse of filing false documents for getting appointment. We do not propose go to the question as to whether such act of the petitioner would come into the ambit of criminal offence or not but one thing is clear that he has not made an application with clean hands. We do not propose go to the question as to whether such act of the petitioner would come into the ambit of criminal offence or not but one thing is clear that he has not made an application with clean hands. The decision rendered in Triveni Devi (Supra) would be of no help to the petitioner as a learned Single Judge of this Court had found that the issue of affixing thumb impression on the application concerned by the applicant though claiming to be a matriculate, had already come to an end in the earlier proceeding in which an order was already passed by a Bench of this Court in that regard. Thus, the Court concerned had narrowed down itself to the issue of age of the petitioner and other issues related to the compassionate appointment only. Hence, the decision is distinguishable. 9. That apart, the father of the petitioner died in the year 2002 and the family has survived for number of years, and, therefore, at the distant point of time, the claim for appointment on compassionate ground does not commend acceptation, for it is well settled that the appointments on compassionate grounds are to be given to the widows or the dependent child of the employee who died in harness are exceptions to the general rule that all public appointments must be in consonance with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The purpose is to help the family to tide over the immediate crisis caused due to the sudden death of the bread earner of the family. However, for whatsoever reason that may be, if the family remained without compassionate appointment for several years, the very basis for compassionate appointment vanishes. The law has been well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and Anr. V/s. Nanak Chand and Anr. reported in (2004)12 SCC 487 . It had been held that compassionate appointment is made to enable the family to tide over the immediate crisis, caused due to sudden death but the question of granting compassionate appointment simply does not arise after much delay as the same is of the nature of exception to the general provisions of appointment to tide over the immediate crisis. It had been held that compassionate appointment is made to enable the family to tide over the immediate crisis, caused due to sudden death but the question of granting compassionate appointment simply does not arise after much delay as the same is of the nature of exception to the general provisions of appointment to tide over the immediate crisis. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amrendra Singh V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 2000(4) PLJR 107 has negatived the claim of compassionate appointment on the ground that any such appointment after long gap is not permissible in law. Similar view has been taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Anu Prakash Gupta and Anr. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2001(1) PLJR 281 . 10. The learned Single Judge of this Court has clearly recorded the finding that the very purpose of compassionate appointment has now been lost in a span of more than seven years and in view of the fact that the order under challenge in writ petition also records a complete consideration by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee of the petitioner indulging in filing a false certificate, no case could be made out for reopening the claim of the appointment on compassionate ground. 11. In view of the above discussions and in the facts and the circumstances of the case, this Court also does not find any reason for interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in this intra court appeal. 12. As a result, this appeals fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 13. I agree