JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Shri R.C. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant. Shri Satya Prakash appears for Food Corporation of India and represents respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 1.2.2011 in which following the judgment of Apex Court in Food Corporation of India and another v. Nizamuddin and another, Civil Appeal No. 2627 of 2010 decided on 23.3.2010 (2010 (125) FLR 321), learned Single Judge held that since the request of petitioner’s father serving as a Loader in FSD Chandari Kanpur Depot in Gang No. 3, for his retirement on medical ground was not conditional or interlinked with request for giving appointment to his son under the Scheme of Food Corporation of India, in which such arrangement was permissible, the request for voluntary retirement and compassionate appointment of the petitioner, were required to be considered separately. 3. Learned Single Judge held that since the request made by the petitioner’s father was not conditional or interlinked, the petitioner’s application was required to be examined independently. The request for compassionate appointment of his son was considered by the Food Corporation of India and was rejected on the ground that his father did not make application on the prescribed proforma; there were no vacancies left to give compassionate appointment, in the 5% quota. 4. Shri R.C. Gupta submits that learned Single Judge has wrongly relied upon Nizamuddin’s case. He submits that the petitioner’s case is not similar to that of Nizamuddin’s case inasmuch as the petitioner’s father made a request for retirement on medical ground in terms of the scheme in the Circular dated 3.7.1996 alongwith the medical certificate. He was examined, found medically unfit for the job and was retired. His request was dependent upon the appointment to be given to the petitioner on compassionate ground. It is further submitted by Shri R.C. Gupta that the petitioner’s father was illiterate and thus the words and expressions used by him in his application should not be given different meaning to deprive the appointment to his son on compassionate grounds under the Scheme. 5. We have considered the fact of this case in comparison to the facts in Nizamuddin’s case and find that the application made by the petitioner’s father was similarly worded as in the case of Nizamuddin. 5. We have considered the fact of this case in comparison to the facts in Nizamuddin’s case and find that the application made by the petitioner’s father was similarly worded as in the case of Nizamuddin. The petitioner’s application was thus in view of the para-7 of the judgment in Nizamuddin’s case, was to be considered separately. 6. Unfortunately by the time the application for compassionate appointment was considered there was no vacancy in the 5% quota. The petitioner’s father retirement, therefore, could not have been taken as deal to give employment to the petitioner. The consideration of petitioner’s application separately does not suffer from any error of law. 7. The Special Appeal is dismissed. ————