JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with a prayer for quashing the order dated 12.09.2012 contained in Gyapank 18 Mu./Estha. issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau and further for appointment on compassionate ground. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The husband of the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 28.04.1986 at Primary School, Hutukdag, Chhatarpur, Palamau. Husband of the petitioner working as Assistant Teacher at Primary School, Hutukdag, Chhatarpur, Palamau died in harness on 28.08.1995. After the death of her husband the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 09.02.1996 in the office of District Education Officer, Palamau. Thereafter, several reminders/representations for appointment on compassionate ground were submitted by the petitioner before respondent authorities dated 15.05.2010 and 27.04.2012 and several others annexed in the writ petition. On 25.06.2012, petitioner also submitted an application for appointment of her son, namely, Mithilesh Kumar on compassionate ground on Class-IV post if at all she was not eligible for appointment. The case of the petitioner was rejected by District Appointment Committee on 11.09.2012 communicated to her vide order dated 12.09.2012 on the ground that she is non matriculate. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Mr. Ziaul Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Matinuddin Khan submits that the petitioner applied for her appointment on compassionate ground on 09.02.1996 in the office of District Education Officer, Palamau and at that relevant point of time the qualification for appointment on compassionate ground for Class IV post was Class-VIII and as such the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, Mr. H.K. Mehta, Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Mr. Mehta submits that though no counter affidavit has been filed but from the averments of the writ petition it seems that petitioner does not fulfill the requisite qualification for appointment on compassionate ground as minimum qualification for appointment on Class IV post is Tenth Pass as decided by the Circular dated 21.05.2012/19.07.2012 letter no.264 and 8392 issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and as such case of the petitioner has rightly been rejected and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. 5. Having heard the rival submissions of both the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration in view of the fact that petitioner made an application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground as back as on 09.02.1996 but the same has been rejected in the year 2012 basing the claim of Circular of 2012. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar reported in 2015(3) JLJR SC 21 and also in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur reported in (2007) 9 SCC 571 held that: “claim of compassionate appointment under a scheme of particular year cannot be decided in the light of the subsequent scheme that came into force much after the claim request of compassionate appointment is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment de hors the scheme Respondent applied timely for compassionate appointment as per 1993 scheme which was in force at that time thus, cause of action to be considered for compassionate appointment arose when 1993 circular was in force and therefore, the claim cannot be decided as per 2005 scheme circular of 2005 being an administrative/executive order cannot have retrospective effect so as to take away right accrued to the respondent.” 7. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, the relevant rules and guidelines, the impugned order dated 12.09.2012 contained in Gyapank 18 Mu./Estha. issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau is hereby, quashed. The writ petition stands allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh.