JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioners father, while working as Constable in Co-operative Police Vigilance Cell, Bihar, Patna, died-in-harness on 27.1.2002. Accordingly, petitioner filed an application on 21.3.2002 for his compassionate appointment as Constable. 2. From Annexure-4, it appears that the petitioners case for compassionate appointment was placed before the Compassionate Committee and the same was rejected as per communication of the Police Headquarter contained in Memo No.4223/P-2 dated 6.9.2005 on the ground that the petitioner was much over-age for appointment as Constable. The same was communicated to the petitioner by the D.I.G. through said Annexure-4 dated 15.9.2005 after calling the same. 3. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of this Annexure-4 as well as the said Memo No. 4223/P-2 dated 6.9.2005. 4. The said document has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit which shows that the petitioner was not found fit for being appointed as Constable on account of his being over-age. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a letter of the Director General of Police (Personnel) dated 27.3.2006 annexed as Annexure-6 with the writ application which is addressed to the Deputy Secretary of the Government, Home (Police) Department. This letter shows that the Director General of Police (Personnel) has referred the matter of the petitioner to the Government for consideration/recommendation of the case by the Central Compassionate Committee for his appointment on any Class-IV post. He has also referred to a letter of the Deputy Secretary of the Government addressed to the Director General of Police (Personnel) dated 28.8.2006 in which the case of the petitioner has been recommended. These two documents show that subsequent to rejection of his case for appointment on compassionate ground as Constable, his case has been again recommended for condonation of his age in terms of letter no. 8093 dated 25.7.1998 and for placing the matter before the Central Compassionate Committee. Annexure-6 shows that earlier petitioner had applied for reconsideration of his case for appointment on any other post including a post of Class-IV as the petitioner was within the age limit on the date of his application for appointment on a Class-IV post. 6. Petitioner has filed a reply to the counter affidavit today. Alongwith the same, the said letter no. 8093 dated 25.7.1998 has been annexed as Annexure-8. 6. Petitioner has filed a reply to the counter affidavit today. Alongwith the same, the said letter no. 8093 dated 25.7.1998 has been annexed as Annexure-8. This letter shows that, in supersession to earlier letter of the Government, it has been directed that the Rule for condonation of age for appointment of Government servant should be applied in the case of compassionate appointments also subject to application having been submitted in time. Annexure-9 with the reply shows that for general appointment on a Class-IV post, the petitioners application was in time as prescribed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out from paragraphs-13, 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit that the application of the petitioner was again rejected by the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police and it was decided that there is no need to change the previous decision. 8. From the pleadings made in the counter affidavit, it appears that reconsideration of the case of the petitioner was made erroneously for the post of Constable again. It does not appear that the case of the petitioner was considered for a Class-IV post also and whether for that purpose his application was in time. From bare reading of Annexure-8, it is clear that, for computing the age for eligibility of a candidate for his appointment on the basis of his age, the date of application should be taken into account. If the petitioner submitted his application on the date on which he was within the maximum age limit for compassionate appointment on a Class-IV post, his case ought to have been considered for that. Besides, Annexure-8, the Government letter no.8093 dated 25.7.1998 provides for condonation of age also. 9. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that in terms of Annexure-8, the case of the petitioner should be reconsidered for his appointment on any class-IV post after calculating his age as on the date of his application and if necessary by condoning his age in terms of the said letter no. 8093 dated 25.7.1998. 10. Therefore, this Court directs that Central Compassionate Committee to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on a Class-IV post, in the light of the said letter annexed as Annexure-8, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. 8093 dated 25.7.1998. 10. Therefore, this Court directs that Central Compassionate Committee to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on a Class-IV post, in the light of the said letter annexed as Annexure-8, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. The case of the petitioner should be considered by the Central Compassionate Committee in its next meeting which may be held after receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.