JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the instant writ application the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents for appointment/promotion on Class-III post on the ground that persons juniors to him and having less qualifications have been appointed against Class-III posts. 2. The facts, in brief is that the father of the petitioner died in harness while working in BIT, Sindri. On the death of the father of the petitioner, the application was made for appointment and accordingly recommendation was made for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has been appointed vide Annexure-2 to the writ application against Class-IV post. It has been submitted in the writ application that though juniors to the petitioners having less qualifications have been appointed in Class-III posts but the case of the petitioner has not been considered against Class-III post. It has further been averred that in spite of vacancies in Class-III post since the petitioner has been appointed against Class-IV post. He submitted representation before the concerned respondent for appointment on Class-III post. Since the said representation did not evoke any response by the respondent concerned, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is possessing Intermediate (Arts) qualification and also having Diploma in Computer Application, therefore, the case of the petitioner should have been considered in Class-III post because of the vacancies is evident from Annexure-4 to the writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that juniors to the petitioner have been appointed against Class-III post and the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination which is violative to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2, wherein it has been submitted that since the petitioner has been appointed on Class-IV post on compassionate ground, he cannot stake his claim for appointment on ClassIII post after a lapse of a period of seven years from the date of issue of order vide Memo no.9 dated 04.01.2005 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). It has further been submitted that the case of the petitioner had been recommended for appointment against Class-IV post by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee and the petitioner did not choose to challenge the recommendation, rather on the contrary he accepted his appointment against Class-IV post without any demur. He cannot be allowed to claim appointment on the Class-III post at this stage. It has further been submitted that no promotion from Class-IV to Class-III post has been given to any person junior to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the name of Usha Jha had been recommend to Class-III post and, therefore, she has been appointed on Class-III post. Similarly, the names of Mukesh Singh, Rajesh Kumar and Pankaj Sharma had been recommended for Class-III and accordingly they have been appointed in Class-III posts, however, the name of petitioner has been recommended for Class-IV post. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has protested against the recommendation of his name for appointment on Class-IV post. 5. Learned counsel for the State apart from reiterating the submission made in the counter affidavit has submitted that earlier the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.4070 of 2004 and this Court vide order dated 30.08.2004 has been pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment against Class-IV post and accordingly, he has been appointed against said post. So there is absolutely no illegality or infirmity on the part of the respondents for appointing the petitioner in Class-IV post. Learned counsel for the State also submits that the very purpose of compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate distress condition and the respondents considering the economic condition and also plight have appointed the petitioner against Class-IV post. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner does not merit consideration, due to the following facts and reasons: (I) Admittedly, the father of the petitioner was an employee in BIT Sindri, died in harness. On consideration of the application, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment against Class-IV post and accordingly, petitioner has been appointed as a Laboratory Attendant as per Annexure-2 to the writ petition. On consideration of the application, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment against Class-IV post and accordingly, petitioner has been appointed as a Laboratory Attendant as per Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Therefore, the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground has been achieved in the instant case. (II) Since the case of the petitioner has been considered by the competent authority for appointment, there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality on the part of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner against Class-III post. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined accede to the prayer of the petitioner. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.