ORDER Mihir Kumar Jha, J 1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has assailed the recommendation of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee as communicated by Memo No. 78 dated 13.2.2009 wherein the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected only on the ground of filing of the application by the petitioner after the prescribed period of limitation. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has assailed the recommendation of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee as communicated by Memo No. 78 dated 13.2.2009 wherein the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected only on the ground of filing of the application by the petitioner after the prescribed period of limitation. For the sake of clarity the reasoning of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, as contained in the impugned order, is quoted hereinbelow: <span class="Hfont"> ^^vkosnd ds vuqdaikRed fu;qfDr gsrq izkIr izLrko esa layXu dkxtkrksa dks ns[kk x;kA ljdkjh lsod dh e`R;q fnukad 30-3-2000 dks gqbZ gS rFkk vkosnu&i= izLrko ftyk f’k{kk v/kh{kd] iVuk ds i=kad 2739 fnukad 28-5-08 }kjk e`R;q dh frfFk ls 08 o”kZ 01 ekg ds ckn izkIr gqvk gSA dkfeZd ,oa iz’kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx ds i=kad 2822 fnukad 27-4-95 ds vuqlkj ljdkjh lsod dh e`R;q dh frfFk ls 5 o”kZ rd vkosnu&i= lefiZr djus dk le; lhek fu/kkZfjr gSA vkosnu&i= ¼fofgr izi=½ [k.M&2 ds dzekad&7 esa fo|ky; iz/kku ;Fkk iz/kkuk/;kid }kjk 06 ekpZ] 2002 esa gLrk{kj fd;k x;k gSA vkosnu&i= ¼fofgr izi=½ [k.M&1 ds dzekad&2 ¼?k½ esa vkosnd dk ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk&vkBokW oxZ esa i<+ jgk gWw vafdr gS vFkkZr lIre oxZ mRrh.kZ gSaA ‘kS{kf.kd izek.k&i= layXu ugha gSA vkosnu ds ‘kS{kf.kd izek.k&i= esa vafdr tUe frfFk 20-12-1986 ds vuqlkj fnukad 6-3-2002 dks vkosnd dk vk;q 15 o”kZ 02 ekg ls vf/kd gksrk gS tks uckfyx gSA vkosnd ds e/;ek dk ‘kS{kf.kd izek.k&i= ds vuqlkj o”kZ 2005 esa e/;ek ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gq, gSa] tks fnukad 01-10-2005 dh frfFk esa fuxZr gSA ;g ‘kS{kf.kd izek.k i= ljdkjh lsod dh e`R;q frfFk ls 05 o’kZ 06 ekg dh vof/k ds ckn fuxZr gSA fnukad 30-10-08 dks cSBd esa vkosnd dk ‘kiFk i=&tks e`rd ds vkfJr ifjokj dk Hkj.k&iks”k.k djus laca/kh ,oa e`rd dh iq=h dk vukifr ‘kiFk i= vizkIr jgus ds dkj.k lfefr }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd ftyk f’k{kk v/kh{kd] iVuk mDr 'kiFk i= lfefr dks Hkstuk lqfuf’pr djsaA vkosnd us vius vkosnu&i= fnukad 11-12-08 }kjk mDr ‘kiFk i= dk;kZy; esa lefiZr fd;k gSA mijksDr of.kZr ds vuqlkj vkosnd dk vuqdaikRed fu;qfDr dk izLrko fu/kkZfjr le; lhek ds ckn izkIr gqvk gSA tks dkyckf/kr gSA lfefr }kjk loZlEefr ls vkosnd ds vkosnu&i= dks vLohd`r djus dk fu.kZ; ysrh gSA** 3. From the reading of the aforementioned resolution of the Committee it would be clear that the receipt of the application by the office of the Collector from the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Patna has been made the basis for holding application of the petitioner to be time barred, inasmuch as it has been recorded that the date of death of the father of the petitioner was 30.3.2000, whereas proposal alongwith the application of the petitioner was received from the office of the District Superintendent of Education on 28.5.2008 i.e. after 8 years 1 month whereas the period prescribed for filing of the application for appointment on compassionate ground was only five years as laid down in the letter of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department No. 2822 dated 27.4.1995. 4. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that there are unimpeachable evidence to show that an application for appointment on compassionate ground was filed well before 6.3.2002 inasmuch as the Headmaster of the school where the father of the petitioner was working had forwarded the application of the petitioner to the District Superintendent of Education, Patna in the date of 6.3.2002. He has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the communication of the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Patna dated 13.6.2002 to show that on the basis of receipt of such application through the Headmaster of the School there was communication made to the petitioner for supplying certain information and document as with regard to his educational qualification. He has also placed reliance on other documents to show that as a matter of fact the petitioner had remained vigilant and therefore, his application should not have been rejected at least on the ground of delay in filing of the application. 5. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute this position that an application was filed for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground within the prescribed period of limitation but his submission is that the required information and documents were not submitted by the petitioner within the prescribed period of limitation and in fact when the petitioner himself had filed certain document of educational qualification in the year 2002 and other documents in the year 2008, he cannot claim to have filed the application within the prescribed period of limitation. 6. 6. It is true that an application has to be filed by the dependent of the deceased employee in the prescribed proforma alongwith all the requisite documents but then in the case of the petitioner there is a special feature inasmuch as on the date of death of his father he was a minor and was a school going student. The petitioner became major only on 20.12.2004 by which time he had passed Class VIII examination in view of his certificate dated 3.1.2003 showing him to have passed such Class VIII examination from Madhya Vidyalaya, Parsa, Phulwari Sharif. This information of his passing of Class VIII examination as also becoming major was also given by the petitioner to the Block Education Extension Officer on 21.12.2004 vide Annexure 3 to the writ application. If thereafter the authorities wanted any further certificate to be produced by the petitioner they had to again take immediate action but then it would appear that the first communication as with regard to submission of educational qualification certificates by the petitioner was made by D.S.E., Patna on 13.6.2002 and when the petitioner immediately after becoming major had submitted his certificate of educational qualification on 21.12.2004, no communication was sent to him for next four years and therefore, if certain informations were again sought for from the petitioner only in the year 2008, its immediate reply being given by the petitioner in the year 2008 could not debar him for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground. In any event that is not the reason for rejecting the case of the petitioner by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. 7. It stands settled by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh & ors. vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 1993(1) PLJR 414, that an appointment on compassionate ground can be claimed by the dependent by becoming eligible within the prescribed period of limitation. In the present case the date of death of the father of the petitioner is 30.3.2000 and therefore, if there was an application pending, as is confirmed from the communication of the D.S.E., Patna, the petitioner becoming major on 20.12.2004 and having passed Class VIII examination, by that time, would definitely make him eligible for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground against a Class IV post. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the State, however, is correct in pointing out that his Madhyama qualification of the year 2006 cannot be taken into consideration for his appointment on compassionate ground, inasmuch as such qualification was acquired by him after completing the period five years. In fact this aspect of the matter also stands settled in the case of Lakshmi Bhatt vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2002(4) PLJR 870 . 9. Considering all these aspects this Court is at a loss to understand as to how the Collector of Patna District could have ignored the specific report of the D.S.E., Patna as with regard to receipt of the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner in his office in the year 2002. Merely because the D.S.E. has explained that there was delay in submission of the certificates by the petitioner, that could not have made the Collector and his Compassionate Appointment Committee to reject the case of the petitioner on the ground of delay in filing of the application. The application as noted above was filed within the prescribed period of time and therefore, the Committee had committed an error in rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground of delay in filing of the application. A pending application which was never rejected by the competent authority could not have been thrown only because certain documents were filed after prescribed period of five years. 10. Thus, for the reasons recorded above, the resolution of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, as contained in Annexure 15, dated 13.2.2009 so far it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Collector of Patna District to get the case of the petitioner immediately reconsidered for making a recommendation for his appointment on a Class IV post by treating him to have passed Class VIII examination within the prescribed period of limitation of five years and also becoming major on 20.12.2004. 11. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and in the event the District Compassionate Appointment Committee would recommend the case of the petitioner for appointment against Class IV post, the resultant order of appointment will be issued in next one month. 12. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.