JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order contained in memo no. 1779 dated 30.10.2006 (Annexure-6) passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya, respondent no. 2 by which the recommendation of the District Compassionate Committee at its meeting dated 12.8.2006 to appoint the petitioner on a Class-Ill post has been cancelled. He further seeks quashing of the letter contained in memo no. 153 dated 31.1.2007 of the Establishment Deputy Collector, Gaya to the same effect. 3. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. The mother of the petitioner, Malti Devi, who was a Female Warden working in Lady Elgin Janana Hospital, Gaya died on 16.2.2003 leaving behind her husband, Ramjee Prasad, the petitioner Ramesh Kumar, aged about 15 years and a minor daughter Lata Kumari. The father of the petitioner filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground which in due course was taken up for consideration by the District Compassionate Committee at its meeting dated 19.6.2004 and under memo no. 879 dated 26.6.2004 it was recommended to appoint the father of the petitioner on a Ciass-IV post. However, before any appointment letter could be issued, and as a matter of fact none has been issued till date, the father of the petitioner through his letter dated 7.4.2006 (Annexure-3) wrote to the Medical Superintendent, Lady Elgin Janana Hospital, Gaya that during the three years that had elapsed after the death of his wife, appointment letter has not been issued and in the meantime he himself was not keeping well and accordingly, he prayed that appointment on compassionate ground may be given to his son Ramesh Kumar, the petitioner. The said letter was duly received on 8.4.2006 by the Medical Superintendent. Subsequently on 4.5.2006 the petitioner filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground which was forwarded by the Medical Superintendent, Lady Elgin Janana Hospital. On 14.10.2006 an affidavit of the father of the petitioner pressing the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was also filed. 4. The case of the petitioner was duly processed and in its meeting held on 12.8.2006, the District Compassionate Committee recommended his case for appointment on a Class-Ill post in accordance with his qualifications. On 14.10.2006 an affidavit of the father of the petitioner pressing the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was also filed. 4. The case of the petitioner was duly processed and in its meeting held on 12.8.2006, the District Compassionate Committee recommended his case for appointment on a Class-Ill post in accordance with his qualifications. However, by the impugned order dated 30.10.2006, the District Magistrate, Gaya on finding that there was an earlier recommendation in favour of the father of the petitioner by the District Compassionate Committee on 26.6.2004, held that there could be no question of considering the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment with respect to the death of the same person and the recommendation of the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting dated 12.8.2006 contained in memo no. 1349 dated 2.9.2006 was cancelled. By letter dated 31.1.2007, the Establishment Deputy Collector also communicated the said order of the District Magistrate stating the aforesaid reasons. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although recommendation had been made in favour of the father of the petitioner on 26.6.2004 but no letter of appointment on compassionate ground was issued till 7.4.2006 when the father of the petitioner expressed his desire that the compassionate appointment on account of the death of his wife should be given to the petitioner after cancelling the recommendation made in his favour. It is submitted that even thereafter at no point of time any letter of compassionate appointment was issued in favour of the father of the petitioner and since the father of the petitioner had requested that recommendation in his favour should be cancelled and the application of the petitioner be placed before the District Compassionate Committee for its recommendation, the District Magistrate had no occasion to have passed the impugned order. 6. It is alleged that if the letter dated 7.4.2006 (Annexure-3) was not communicated to the competent authorities by the Medical Superintendent, Lady Elgin Janana Hospital, Gaya then the petitioner cannot be faulted for the same and the recommendations made in his favour for appointment on Class-Ill post by the District Compassionaate Committee could not have been cancelled by the District Magistrate on a non est ground as the application of the petitioner itself has been filed after the request by the father of the petitioner to cancel the recommendation made in his favour. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the recommendation having been earlier made in favour of the father of the petitioner, no such recommendation could have been made in favour of the petitioner and the District Magistrate therefore, has rightly cancelled the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner. 8. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the State. It is evident that it is not a case where any fraud has been committed by the petitioner or his father in order to get benefit of two appointments with respect to the death of the same person rather it is clear from the materials on the record that after the recommendation was made in favour of the father of the petitioner, he had approached the concerned authorities with a prayer that recommendation made in his favour be cancelled and the application for compassionate appointment of his son be sent for consideration by the District Compassionate Committee. Only after the said letter dated 7.4.2006, which was duly received by the Medical Superintendent on 8.4.2006, the petitioner filed his application for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and the said application was also within the period of limitation laid down in the relevant circular of the State Government, i.e., five years. In the said circumstances, the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the District Compassionate Committee could not have been cancelled by the District Magistrate on the ground that earlier the recommendation had been made in favour of the father of the petitioner since the application itself has been filed after the said recommendation had been requested to be cancelled by the father of the petitioner. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders dated 30.10.2006 (Annexure-6) and 31.1.2007 (Annexure-7) cannot stand and they are accordingly quashed. 10. The recommendation made by the District Compassionate Committee at its meeting held on 12.8.2006 in favour of the petitioner is directed to be considered by the competent authority and appropriate orders passed on the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. The writ application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.