JUDGMENT : 1. Matter comes up on the misc. application filed for vacation of interim order passed ex-parte. 2. However, we have heard counsel for the parties on merit. 3. Instant special appeal is directed against order of the ld.Single Judge dt.28.10.2015. 4. It is very unfortunate that on the one hand the Government has framed the Rules keeping compassion to provide compassionate appointment under “the Rajasthan Appointment on Compassionate Ground to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996” and the object behind is that if the employee who has served the Institution for a long time and died while in service and the dependents in harness, lose their bread winner and the family comes in financial crunch to extended solace by providing employment at least to one of the dependent of the deceased employee to overcome the untimely demise of the bread winner. 5. In the instant case, the employee of Nagaur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. died while in service on 01.09.2008 and the respondent Prashant Soni, being the son & dependent of the deceased employee submitted application seeking compassionate appointment under the relevant Rules of 1996 on 17.09.2008 but it is unfortunate that he was underage at the relevant point of time when his father died and his application remain pending for a sufficient long time and it is brought to notice of the court that it was rejected on 26.05.2014. Indisputably on the date when his application was considered, he was over 18 years of age which is the minimum age prescribed to seek employment and that was a subject matter of challenge by filing of writ petition before the ld.Single Judge of this court. 6. The ld.Single Judge after taking into consideration material on record, set aside the letter of rejection and directed the concerned authority to consider the case of the respondent for compassionate appointment under order impugned dt.28.10.2015. 7. 6. The ld.Single Judge after taking into consideration material on record, set aside the letter of rejection and directed the concerned authority to consider the case of the respondent for compassionate appointment under order impugned dt.28.10.2015. 7. The main thrust of submission of counsel for the appellant is that the date on which the application was submitted by the respondent, a dependent member of deceased employee, i.e. 17.09.2008, he was underage and not eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment and under the scheme of Rules, one has to be of 18 years and the application is to be submitted within three months of the alleged death of the bread winner and accordingly, when he was underage on the date of submission of the application, no error was committed by the authority in rejecting his application while considering his case for compassionate appointment, as prayed for. 8. Although, the ld.Single Judge rejected the contentions advanced under order impugned, but we do find no substance in the submissions made for the reason that one is supposed to be within the age, which is one of the condition of eligibility in seeking employment but that is one of the factor which is always to be kept in mind when someone is coming forward to seek public employment by adopting a due process and mechanism provided by law making selections from open market but in the instant case, no one is made aware in advance as to when their bread winner will lose to provide economic assistance to the family and these are incidents which happen untimely with the family and the Government has come with the object to do away with the conditions of eligibility and provide employment to the dependent member of the indigent family by providing them social protection. 9. 9. Indisputably, in the instant case, when the application came to be considered & rejected by the authority, the dependent member had attained the minimum age prescribed under the Rules but it appears that the authority stood back on the date of submission of the application and in our considered view, these are all technical issues only to deny legitimate right of the dependent member of the deceased employee who is otherwise eligible to seek compassionate appointment and in our considered view, on the crucial day when his application was considered by the authority, his eligibility to hold the post was to be considered and his application could not have been rejected on these technical grounds holding him ineligible because of underage on the date of submission of the application and this test is always to be looked into only when someone comes forward from open market and not while seeking compassionate appointment and this what the ld.Single Judge has considered at length in the order impugned dt.28.10.2015. 10. After we have heard counsel for the parties, we find no error being committed by the ld.Single Judge in passing the order impugned which may call for our interference. 11. The special appeal is wholly without substance, stands dismissed. However, we direct the concerned authorities to comply with the order passed by the ld.Single Judge dt.28.10.2015 and consider the case of the respondent-Prashant Soni for compassionate appointment for the post, he is eligible under the Rules within a period of one month from today. As a consequence whereof the misc. application stands disposed of.