ORDER : 1. With the consent of the parties, hearing of this matter has been done through video conferencing. They have no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity. 2. This instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 08.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.5212 of 2018 by which the decision taken by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee on 17.05.2018, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground, has been refused to be interfered with. 3. The brief facts of the case, which require to be referred herein, read hereunder as: The father of the writ petitioner-appellant, late Ramchandra Mahto, was working as peon (Padchar) in the office of Commercial Taxes, Giridih and while he was in service died in harness on 15.03.2004. The writ petitioner-appellant being the elder and only major son of the deceased employee, had applied for his appointment on compassionate ground in the prescribed format along with all the relevant documents on 06.08.2004. The application of the writ petitioner-appellant was placed before the District Establishment Appointment Committee, Giridih, who took decision on 30.11.2005 by calling upon a report from the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih with regard to the VIIIth class pass certificate as submitted by the writ petitioner, but the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih had not sent any report and ultimately, the report had come on 22.12.2006 stating therein that the educational qualification certificate submitted by the writ petitioner is doubtful. The Committee after considering the report of District Superintendent of Education decided for VIIth pass certificate from the writ petitioner so that the Committee could consider about the relaxation in the educational qualification for appointment of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground. In pursuance to the aforesaid decision, the writ petitioner had submitted his VIIth pass certificate in the year 2007 and thereafter, the Committee in its meeting dated 05.12.2007 has decided that since the writ petitioner had submitted VIIth pass certificate and the power for relaxation of educational qualification is vested only with the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Raj Bhasa Department, the decision was taken to refer the matter before the Personnel, Administrative Reform and Raj Bhasa Department. The department of Personnel, Administrative Reform and Raj Bhasa Department had not approved the proposal of granting relaxation in education qualification and, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes vide his memo dated 02.07.2012, rejected the application of the petitioner. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that the decision dated 02.07.2012 was never been communicated to the writ petitioner, even though several representations were made in between the year 2013, 2015 and 2016. Ultimately, the writ petitioner resorted to the Right to Information Act and after that he came to know about rejection of his application. The writ petitioner, thereafter, again approached to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, wherein direction was issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department vide its letter dated 18.07.2017 to reproduce all the relevant documents with recommendation, upon receiving the said letter, the Deputy Commissioner asked the writ petitioner to fill up fresh application, for which, his case was not considered for appointment, although the writ petitioner objected the same but having no option he submitted fresh application on 16.08.2017 with protest. The application submitted afresh on 16.08.2017 had been rejected as time barred since the same was submitted after lapse of 13 years, while as per the rule, the application for appointment on compassionate ground has to be submitted within five years from the dated of death of the employee. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the said decision approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5212 of 2018 but the learned Single Judge of this Court, has refused to interfere with the impugned decision on the ground that there is already delay of 14 years and when the family of the deceased employee has survived for more than 14 years, therefore, no compassion is left in the case of the writ petitioner-appellant. 4. Mr. Deepak Bharti assisted by Mr. 4. Mr. Deepak Bharti assisted by Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the first application was filed within the period of limitation as provided in the circular dated 05.10.1991 which was within the period of five years but the same although was rejected on 02.07.2012 but not communicated and when the writ petitioner came to know about rejection order dated 02.07.2012 he was asked to submit a fresh application, in pursuance thereto, fresh application was submitted on 16.08.2017 and therefore, the application submitted on 16.08.2017 cannot be construed to be fresh, rather it will be treated to be in continuation to the application submitted by the writ petitioner immediately after the date of death of his father i.e. 06.08.2004, while the death occurred on 15.03.2004. It has been submitted that it is the respondents who have asked to submit a fresh application and as such, there is lapse on the part of the authority first by not communicating the order dated 02.07.2012 and consequently asking the writ petitioner to file fresh application. It is settled law that when the laches lies on the part of the respondent, the writ petitioner may not be allowed to suffer but this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 5. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned A.A.G appearing for the State of Jharkhand, has submitted that the learned Single Jude has considered the very intent and object of the scheme to provide appointment on compassionate ground to tied over the dependant of the aggrieved family, which has occurred due to sudden demise of the breadearner so that the dependant of the deceased employee may survive, but in a case where the dependant of the deceased employee for the one reason or the other, has survived for a period of 14 years, the very object and intent of the appointment on compassion since have been meted out, it will be contrary to the very object of appointment on compassionate ground, and considering this aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge, has refused to interfere with the impugned decision, negating the claim of the writ petitioner, therefore, the same is not required to be interfered with. It has further been submitted by rebutting the contention agitated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant about the so called delay alleged to have been committed by the respondents, but merely because the respondents have taken a decision to consider the candidature of the writ petitioner, even though has not the VIIIth class certificate, the question would be if any illegality has been committed by one of the functionary of the State of Jharkhand for referring the matter before the competent authority to take decision with respect to the ground of relaxation in the educational qualification, the same will not be of any aid to the writ petitioner as because the appointment is to be provided under the scheme dated 05.10.1991, wherein there is no provision of relaxation to be granted so far as it relates to the educational qualification of the candidate. It has been submitted that the concerned respondent has committed gross illegality by not rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner on the ground of lack of educational qualification of VIIIth class pass, but instead of doing so, the decision was taken to consider the candidature of the writ petitioner on the basis of VIIth pass certificate and for that the matter was referred before the Personnel, Administrative Reform and Raj Bhasa Department, wherein the claim of the writ petitioner has been rejected. According to him it is settled law that if a candidate is not possessing the requisite educational qualification, there cannot be any consideration. Further, it has been nowhere stated by the writ petitioner that at the time of fresh application as on 16.08.2017 he was having the VIIIth class pass certificate. In the light of the aforesaid ground, submission has been made that the learned Single Jude after elaborately discussed the facts and the position of law in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground, has rightly not interfered with the impugned decision of the authority and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. 6. In the light of the aforesaid ground, submission has been made that the learned Single Jude after elaborately discussed the facts and the position of law in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground, has rightly not interfered with the impugned decision of the authority and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. 6. This Court, after having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going across the finding recorded in the impugned order, as also the material available on record, deem it fit and proper to refer certain admitted facts for consideration of the lis, which read hereunder as: The father of the writ petitioner, who was in service, working as peon in the office of Sale Tax, Giridih and while in service, died in harness on 15.03.2004. The writ petitioner, being the elder and only major son, made an application for consideration of his appointment on compassionate ground by submitting an application on 06.08.2004. The matter of the writ petitioner was placed before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, wherein some doubt had arisen about the VIIIth class pass certificate of the writ petitioner and as such, a report was sought for from the District Superintendent of Education about the genuineness of the certificate of the VIIIth class pass, in pursuance thereto, the DSE, Giridih submitted a report raising therein dispute about the said certificate. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee thereafter, has taken a decision to consider the candidature of the writ petitioner on the basis of VIIth pass certificate, but for making entry in the service the VIIIth class pass certificate was the minimum educational qualification, and hence the matter was referred before the Personnel, Administrative Reform and Raj Bhasa Department for seeking relaxation with respect to the educational qualification of the writ petitioner, allowing the Committee to consider his candidature on the basis of VIIth pass but the same was refused vide decision dated 02.07.2012. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that the order dated 02.07.2012 has not been communicated to him, rather the said decision has been supplied to him under the Right to Information Act, upon which, the writ petitioner has approached before the concerned authority who has given direction to him to make fresh application, in pursuance thereto, fresh application was made on 16.08.2017 with protest but the same was rejected on being time barred. 7. 7. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the order, deem it fit and proper to deal with the circular, basis upon which the appointment has been sought for under the compassionate ground, which is on the basis of the circular issued by the Personnel, Administrative Reform and Raj Bhasa Department dated 05.10.1991. The said circular contains a provision of making an application within the period of five years from the date of death of the employee. It is settled position of law that the appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India but by way of an exception, the State has taken a policy decision as on 05.10.1991 to consider the case of the dependants of the deceased employee in order to tied over their financial difficulties which has arisen due to sudden demise of the breadearner in the family, therefore, the basic object of the scheme dated 05.10.1991 is to meet out the financial crunch of the dependant of the deceased employee, which has arisen due to sudden demise of the concerned employee and therefore, in the circular dated 05.10.1991 a condition has been stipulated about making an application within the period of five years from the date of death of the deceased employee, meaning thereby, five years’ time has been treated to be the period of limitation in entertaining an application from the eligible dependant of the deceased employee for consideration of the case for appointment on compassionate ground. Once there is a limitation of five years, which has got purpose in the context for providing appointment on compassionate ground i.e. to achieve the basic object and intent of appointment on compassionate ground to tied over the immediate difficulties arisen due to sudden demise of the breadearner and if the dependant of the employee survives even after the period of five years, the basic intent and object to provide appointment on compassionate ground will be said to be not available and if in that circumstances, appointment on compassionate ground would be provided, it will be contrary to the basic object and intent of appointment on compassionate ground. 8. The issue of appointment on compassionate ground time to time fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the same, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushma Gosain and Ors. 8. The issue of appointment on compassionate ground time to time fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the same, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushma Gosain and Ors. vs. Union of India reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468 held at paragraph 9 which read as under: “9. We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the breadearner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” It is evident from the judgment rendered in the case of Sushma Gosain & Ors. vs. Union of India reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468 which is the judgment upon which the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also placed reliance, speaks about the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground, which is to mitigate the hardship due to the death of breadearner in the family and therefore, there should not be delay in appointment, and must be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress by not getting the matter pending for years. Further, if there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. The aforesaid ratio clearly speaks that the appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided immediately. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh reported in (2014) 13 SCC 583 wherein it was observed that compassionate appointment cannot be granted as of right and the application to be decided as expeditiously as possible and held at paragraph 6, which reads as under: “6. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its breadearner. Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its breadearner. Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.” (emphasis supplied) The above consistent view, has been relied in various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 , State of Manipur v. Mohd. Rajaodin reported in (2003) 7 SCC 511 , Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan Das and Ors. reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560 and Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192 . The Hon’ble Apex Court has also considered in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur reported in (2007) 9 SCC 571 dealing with the issue of applicability of the scheme, as to which scheme will be applicable, and answering the same, it has been held that the scheme prevailing on the date of death of the concerned employee will be applicable in consideration of the case for appointment on compassionate ground. In the judgment rendered in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 wherein at paragraphs 15, 17 and 20 it has been held as under: “15. In the judgment rendered in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 wherein at paragraphs 15, 17 and 20 it has been held as under: “15. Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee’s family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognised as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. 17. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, while emphasising that a compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of course or in posts above Classes III and IV, this Court had observed that: (SCC p. 140, para 2) ‘2. … The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.’ 20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind : (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request 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 dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee’s family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.” (emphasis supplied) 9. In the light of the aforesaid proposition of law, as has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the fact of this case has been appreciated by this Court and admitted position is that for one reason or the other, the dependant of the deceased employee has survived for a period of 14 years and in that circumstances, if the learned Single Judge, has refused to interfere with the impugned decision which according to our considered view, suffers from no infirmity. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant that there is delay on the part of the authority for which the appellant cannot be saddled, but this principle is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, at least for the two reasons. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant that there is delay on the part of the authority for which the appellant cannot be saddled, but this principle is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, at least for the two reasons. It is admitted case of the writ petitioner that he has sought to get appointment on compassionate ground on the strength of VIIth pass certificate, for which his application was referred before the competent authority of the Personnel, Administrative Reform and Raj Bhasa Department for relaxation, while the admitted position is that getting appointment under Government Establishment, VIIIth class pass certificate, is the basic educational qualification, as also the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to draw attention towards any power under the recruitment rule conferring power upon the authority to grant relaxation in the educational qualification and it is settled that in absence of any power to relax the educational qualification being the basis of recruitment, it cannot be relaxed and taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the authority of the Personnel, Administrative Reform and Raj Bhasa Department, has rightly refused to grant relaxation by rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner vide order dated 02.07.2012. Secondly, even accepting that the respondents have asked the writ petitioner to make further application, in pursuance thereto, fresh application was made on 16.08.2017 but it has not been pleaded as to whether the writ petitioner has submitted application on the basis of VIIIth pass? Therefore, we are constrained to take the view that fresh application as was submitted by the writ petitioner on 16.08.2017 is on the basis of his educational qualification of VIIth pass and as has been decided by us in the preceding paragraph that there cannot be any relaxation in the basic educational qualification and therefore, on this ground also there cannot be any consideration even second time with respect to the candidature of the writ petitioner, although on second time the respondent authorities have rejected the claim on the ground of limitation but we, in order to clarify the position thought it proper to deal with this issue also, since the first application which was filed within time which was rejected on the ground of lack of educational qualification. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Sushma Gosain & Ors. vs. Union of India (supra). With respect to the same, we are of the view that the said judgment speaks about taking immediate decision pertaining to the consideration of appointment on compassionate ground in order to achieve the object and intent of the appointment to be made on compassionate ground but the said judgment never speaks that a person even if not possessing minimum educational qualification, can be provided appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, the said judgment is not applicable in the facts of this case. Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of State vs. Hasmukhbhai passed in L.P.A No.22 of 2010 and analogous cases, wherein reference has been made at paragraph 6.1. We have gone across the paragraph 6.1 of the said judgment but the same has got no nexus with the facts and circumstance of this case as because the same speaks about the applicability of the scheme by taking reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur (supra) but the fact leading to this case is not applicable in the instant case. 11. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the lapse of the period of 14 years and as such, making the observation that the family of the deceased employee since has survived for a period of about 14 years, no purpose would be served, if respondent would be directed to provide appointment on compassionate ground and as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case referred hereinabove, we are also in agreement with the said view. 12. In view thereof, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has committed no error in dismissing the writ petition. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.