Judgment Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has sought direction upon the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father late Jai Nandan Pathak who was working as postman under the respondents and died in harness on 3.9.2008. 3. According to the petitioner application on his behalf was made in plain paper vide Annexure-2 dated 14.3.2009. He had not mentioned any particular post for compassionate appointment. However, the respondents have chosen to deny him compassionate appointment for the post of Postal Assistant on the ground that last applicant who has been selected for such appointment has secured 61 points against 55 points secured by the petitioner on the criteria prescribed by the respondents for such appointment. 4. According to the respondents the applicant- petitioner herein had furnished his application in prescribed proforma for compassionate appointment. The petitioner's application in prescribed proforma was received in Circle Office, Ranchi on 10.7.2009 where he had made claim for appointment for the post of Postal Assistant under the respondent-department. It is further submitted that necessary details relating to number of dependents of the deceased employee, Family pension, earning of the widow, death cum retirement gratuity amount, G.P.F. balance, leave encashment, landed property etc. have to be taken into account as per the scheme formulated under the respondent- Department for consideration of such cases. The petitioner's details were also taken into account. Under the 5% quota for compassionate appointment for the year 2008, 7 vacancies were existing against which 28 cases were considered. Based upon such factor as liabilities, family size, age of children, financial condition, landed property, availability of own house, material status of dependents etc. the case of such applicants including the petitioner were considered and 7 most deserving candidates were selected. However, since petitioner secured lesser points than the last deserving candidate his case was not considered. The petitioner's case was again placed before the next Circle Relaxation Committee meeting held on 4.11.2010 wherein 32 such cases were considered against 11 vacancies arising out for the year 2009 for compassionate appointment. 11 such most deserving cases were selected. Petitioner had secured 58 points against the said post and the last candidate had secured 59 points. The petitioner's case was again placed before the next Circle Relaxation Committee meeting held on 4.11.2010 wherein 32 such cases were considered against 11 vacancies arising out for the year 2009 for compassionate appointment. 11 such most deserving cases were selected. Petitioner had secured 58 points against the said post and the last candidate had secured 59 points. Thereafter, petitioner's case was again placed before the Circle Relaxation Committee meeting held on 5.7.2011 to consider 40 cases against 10 vacancies for the year 2010 in the said quota of compassionate appointment. The vacancies against the post of Postal Assistant were 5, 3 against the post of Postman and 2 against MTS . The petitioner's case was considered and was found to have secured 55 points in comparison to the last recommended candidate who secured 61 points. Since the petitioner had applied for the post of Postal Assistant and not for Postman or MTS, his case was not recommended for Postal Assistant as he had secured lesser marks. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that thrice the case of the petitioner was considered but his case was not recommended as he had secured lesser marks than the last recommended candidate, who was recommended for the post of Postal Assistant. 5. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that for the other post of Postman the last recommended candidate had secured 54 points while the petitioner had secured 55 points as per the information obtained under R.T.I. Petitioner is willing to be appointed in the post of Postman in the Department of Post Office though he has higher qualification having master degree in Economics and also possess diploma certificate in computer. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through relevant materials on record. Though the petitioner has tried to make out a case that he had made an application on plain paper not claiming any particular post after the death of his father on 14.3.2009, but as per the requirements under the relevant circular for compassionate appointment the prescribed proforma which he had submitted (Annexure-R/VI) mentioned that he had made application for appointment to the post of Postal Assistant. The respondents have considered the case of petitioner in 3 successive meeting of the Circle Office Relaxation Committee along with other interested candidates for the year 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively. The respondents have considered the case of petitioner in 3 successive meeting of the Circle Office Relaxation Committee along with other interested candidates for the year 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively. However, in the category of Postal Assistant the petitioner was found to have secured lesser points then the points secured by the last recommended candidate. Even in the last exercise conducted in the year 2011 for vacancies of 2010 for the said quota of compassionate appointment, petitioner had secured 55 points while the last person whose name was recommended had secured 61 points. The petitioner, however now seeks to be considered for the post of Postman. Such a concession at this stage cannot be granted to the petitioner after a detailed exercise in 3 successive years has been undertaken by the respondents on the basis of his application for the post of Postal Assistant. Petitioner having failed to secure the necessary points as secured by the last recommended candidate, the respondents cannot be faulted for not having recommended his name for compassionate appointment. 7. The writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly, dismissed.