JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing vice Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner falls within a short compass. His father namely Faizur Rahaman died in the harness while serving as a teacher of Madrassa at Rowa Muktab under Dharmanagar Sub Division, North Tripura. His father was appointed in that capacity on 05.12.1984. The petitioner had submitted a representation on 18.11.2007 for accommodating him with a job under the Die-in-Harness scheme commensurate to his qualification as there was none in their family in the employment. The petitioner had repeated filing of such representations on 14.02.2007 and 02.08.2007. From the records, it appears that the respondent No.2, the Director of School Education by the memorandum dated 05.03.2017 under No. F.16(79)-SE/GIA/MEC/10 (Annexure P-5 to the writ petition) had communicated as under: “With reference to the above, it is stated that on the date of death of late Faijur Rahaman his son Md. Mohammad Ali Talukdar was under aged (16 years 1 month) and under qualified (class X). So, he may not be appointed under Die-in-harness scheme. As per subsequent provision of Die-in-harness Rules, one time financial assistance of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) only is hereby sanctioned to Md. Mohammad Ali Talukdar, S/O late Faijur Rahaman, ex-Madrassa teacher, Rowa Jr. Madrassa, Dharmanagar. Separate fund sanction memo will be issued to the Inspector of Schools for payment of this amount to Md. Mohammad Ali Talukdar”. 3. Though the said communication was made on 05.03.2010, the petitioner has not accepted the said amount in expectation of the job and he has represented expressing his intention to the respondent No.2 that he would prefer to have a job under the Die-in-Harness scheme. Such representation made by the petitioner on 22.03.2010 was regretted by the memorandum No. F.16(79)-SE/GIA/MEC/ 09/1796 dated 06.08.2010 issued by the respondent No.2. Again the petitioner had filed another representation along with other villagers for his appointment under the Die-in-Harness scheme. It appears that the petitioner was asked to appear for an interview for the post of Under Graduate Madrassa teacher by the Inspector of Schools by the communication under No. F.11(28)/IS-DMN/MDS/08 dated-Nil (Annexure P-10 to the writ petition). Again the petitioner had filed another representation along with other villagers for his appointment under the Die-in-Harness scheme. It appears that the petitioner was asked to appear for an interview for the post of Under Graduate Madrassa teacher by the Inspector of Schools by the communication under No. F.11(28)/IS-DMN/MDS/08 dated-Nil (Annexure P-10 to the writ petition). This however is not at all relevant for determination of this case because the grievance of the petitioner is confined to his appointment under die-in-harness scheme. 4. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly submitted that since it appears that the petitioner is not eligible under the die-in-harness scheme, the respondents be directed to consider him for a job on compassionate ground. 5. The respondents by filing their reply has taken the similar ground as communicated by the memorandum under No. F.16(79)-SE/GIA/MEC/10 dated 05.03.2010 (Annexure P-5 to the writ petition). 6. Having appreciated the averments, records produced with the writ petition and the submission of Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, this court is of the view that so far the age is concerned, under the Die-in-Harness scheme, 1(one) year relaxation can only be granted. Even if such relaxation is given in the petitioner’s case, the petitioner would till remain below the employment age and he cannot be considered for appointment under the Die-in-Harness scheme. Accordingly, the action of the respondents cannot be faulted with. As such, the writ petition does not have any merit and accordingly it is dismissed. Notwithstanding what has been observed, if the petitioner makes an application for a job to the Director of Elementary Education, Government of Tripura, the same shall be considered having regard to the aspect of destitution that the petitioner’s family has faced with after death of his father and also that the petitioner is coming of the minority community. Such consideration may be made as early as possible to serve the purpose as recorded here. There shall be no order as to costs.