ORDER : Ananda Sen, J. - This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.7669 dated 14.08.2014 and Memo No. 1642 dated 14.05.2015 issued by the under Secretary, Government of Jharkhand. 2. The brief facts of the case, is that the petitioner is the son of Late Ruplal Mahto. Ruplal Mahto died in harness on 27.10.2009. After the death of his father, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, within time i.e. 31.08.2010. The case of the petitioner was rejected firstly on 14.08.2014, on the ground that he do not possess requisite qualification to be appointed by the government. It is pertinent to mention here, that at that time, he was non-matriculate. The petitioner, thereafter, completed his studies and did matriculation from Hindi Vidyapith Deoghar and became matriculate in March, 2015. He again applied for grant of compassionate appointment and the said application was rejected on 14.05.2015 due to the reason that the affiliation of the school namely, Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar was cancelled by the Government on 26.04.2014. Thus, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.08.2014 (Annexure-1) and 14.05.2015 (Annexure-3) by which his claim for compassionate appointment stands rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the impugned orders are absolutely bad, and the circular issued in the year 2011, by the Govt. of Jharkhand is not applicable in the case of petitioner, because the petitioner had applied for the compassionate appointment in the year, 2009 i.e. after the death of his father on 27.10.2009. He submits that the Circular of the year 2011 cannot be applied retrospectively. He further relies on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank and another v. M. Mahesh Kumar, as reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 , wherein it has been held that the circular which is prevalent, at the time of death of an employee would be applicable and subsequent circulars cannot be taken into account. He further submits that since the cause of action arose at the time of death of the employee, the circular which was prevalent at that point of time will have to be made applicable. He lastly submits that the circular prior to 2011 should be made applicable to consider the case of the petitioner. 4. He further submits that since the cause of action arose at the time of death of the employee, the circular which was prevalent at that point of time will have to be made applicable. He lastly submits that the circular prior to 2011 should be made applicable to consider the case of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the authorities, since considered the application of the petitioner on 14.05.2015 have correctly taken into consideration the Circular of 2011 which was prevalent at the time of disposal of the claim. 5. After hearing, the learned counsel for parties. I find that the order of rejection dated 14.08.2014 and 14.05.2015, respectively is absolutely bad. 6. The State authorities could not have relied upon the Circular of 2011 in view of the fact that the father of the petitioner died on 27.10.2009, and the petitioner applied for the first time on 31.08.2010. The State should have taken into consideration the norms which was prevalent as on 27.10.2009 for considering the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The minimum qualification for getting appointment under the State as on 27.10.2009 should have been made applicable, so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is clear that the application made by the petitioner was within the prescribed time framed. Thus, in view of the judgment referred to above the Circular of 2011 issued by the State of Jharkhand has got no application in the facts of this present case. The case of the petitioner has to be considered in terms of the circular and norms prevalent on 27.10.2009 (the date of death of the father). The cause of action to claim compassionate appointment for the petitioner has already arisen on 27.10.2009. 7. Thus, application stands allowed, the impugned orders dated 14.08.2014 and 14.05.2014, respectively is set aside. 8. The matter is remanded to respondent no.4 (Chief Engineer, Master Planning Investigation and Hydrology) to decide the case of the petitioner afresh taking into consideration the minimum qualification which was necessary for obtaining a Government job on 27.10.2009. The respondent will pass a reasoned order within three months from the date of production of copy of this order. If, it is held by the respondent, after considering the case, that the petitioner is entitled for appoint, then letter of appointment will be issued within a month, thereafter. 9. The respondent will pass a reasoned order within three months from the date of production of copy of this order. If, it is held by the respondent, after considering the case, that the petitioner is entitled for appoint, then letter of appointment will be issued within a month, thereafter. 9. The writ petition is stands allowed with the following observation. Petition allowed.