JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mr. Chandrashekhar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, learned A. C. to A.K. Das appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was died on 15.04.1997 thereafter the widow applied for the compassionate appointment and the application of the widow has been rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner who happened to be the daughter of the late employee applied for appointment on compassionate ground. Mr. Prasad appearing for the petitioner submits that without any cogent reason the case of the petitioner has been rejected. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-C.C.L. submits that the case of the widow of the employee has not been considered and the same has been rejected and thereafter the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment. He further submits that there is no provision that one after another dependent will be considered on the compassionate ground. He relied in the case of this Court rendered in L.P.A. No. 562 of 2014 which was disposed of vide order dated 03.05.2017 and in L.P.A No.424 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 04.09.2018 and submits that in view of the direction of this Court, the case of petitioner is fit to be rejected. He further submits that according to provisions of live roster of minor, the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment and as such on that ground the case of the petitioner cannot be considered. 5. As a cumulative effect of the facts as discussed above and looking into the law laid down by the division bench of this Court and considering the provisions of live roster of minor for compassionate appointment, no interference of this Court is made out. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.