JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties who have no complaint about any audio and visual quality. This matter is being disposed of at the stage of Admission with the consent of the parties. 2. Perused the explanation dated 02.09.2020 of the concerned Section Officer. 3. No further order is required to be passed in that regard. 4. This appeal has been preferred against the order/judgment dated 09.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1776 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in its meeting held on 18.06.2009 has been found to be unsustainable and accordingly, quashed with a direction upon the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, the appellant No. 2 to offer letter of appointment on Class-IV post in favour of the writ petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the order. 5. Before proceeding further, it requires to refer the brief facts of the case which reads as hereunder: The writ petitioner, who happens to be the daughter of late Mistry Marandi who, while working as Class-IV employee in the office of Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana at Dumka, had died in harness on 09.04.2001 leaving behind his widow, namely, Smt. Bahamuni Murmu and three daughters, namely, Sohagini Marandi, Bahabiti Marandi (writ petitioner) and Manju Marandi. The mother of the writ petitioner submitted an application on 28.09.2004 through proper channel for appointment on compassionate ground to her daughter Bahabiti Marandi who, at the time of death of her father, was aged 15 years 07 months and 12 days and attained her majority subsequently on 16.02.2007. The aforesaid application was referred to the respondent No. 4, Establishment Deputy Collector, Dumka on 16.12.2008 and was placed before the District Compassionate Committee, Dumka on 18.06.2009 for its consideration but the District Compassionate Committee has rejected the claim, therefore, the mother of the writ petitioner had applied for her appointment on compassionate ground on 27.09.2008 which was also placed before the District Compassionate Committee on 18.06.2009 but was also rejected by holding that the application of the mother of the writ petitioner is barred by limitation. The writ petitioner, i.e. daughter of the deceased employee, being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of the State respondent approached to this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The State had appeared and filed counter affidavit inter-alia opposing the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground defending the decision of the State authority on the basis of the Circular of the State which does not provide for appointment to be provided in favour of minor dependant of the deceased employee. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that, after the rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner, the application submitted by the widow of the deceased employee was also rejected being time barred since the Circular applicable dated 05.10.1991 provides consideration for appointment on compassionate ground in an application to be submitted within the period of five years from the date of death. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by quashing the impugned order passed against the writ petitioner relying upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 1995. The aforesaid decision has been impugned in the present intra-court appeal. 6. Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned AAG-I appearing for the State/appellant questioned the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge submitting that quashing of the impugned order of the State respondent denying the claim of appointment on compassionate ground is not sustainable in the eye of law because the appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided under a scheme which was floated by the erstwhile State of Bihar as on 05.10.1991 and which has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand after its creation w.e.f. 15.11.2000. The scheme does not provide appointment on compassionate ground to the minor dependant of the deceased employee, thus, the District Compassionate Committee, by taking into consideration the Circular dated 05.10.1991, has rightly rejected the claim of the writ petitioner since at the time of making of application she was admittedly minor. The scheme does not provide appointment on compassionate ground to the minor dependant of the deceased employee, thus, the District Compassionate Committee, by taking into consideration the Circular dated 05.10.1991, has rightly rejected the claim of the writ petitioner since at the time of making of application she was admittedly minor. However, the learned Single Judge has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar and Others (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to reject the decision of the authority denying the claim of the appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that the dependant was minor at the time of making of application though the dependant attained her majority on the date when the claim for compassionate appointment was considered by the authority. She further submits that the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court cannot be made applicable since it would be apparent that the aforesaid judgment has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case, meaning thereby, the aforesaid judgment had been rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court under the provision of Article 142 of the Constitution of India and not under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and as such, reliance upon the aforesaid decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court applicable, cannot be said to be proper. She further submits that appointment on compassionate ground is not provided as a matter of right rather it is by way of exception to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, as such, the same is to be considered and to be provided strictly in pursuance to the scheme floated by the State Government. The State Government has come out with a Circular dated 05.10.1991 which does not contain any provision to provide appointment to the dependant of the deceased employee who is minor at the time of death. The State Government has come out with a Circular dated 05.10.1991 which does not contain any provision to provide appointment to the dependant of the deceased employee who is minor at the time of death. She has further referred to the Circular issued on 01.11.1993 by the Personnel Administrative Reforms Department of the State of Bihar which has also been adopted by the State of Jharkhand after its creation where specific restriction has been imposed not to consider the case of such dependant of the deceased employee who on the date of death is found to be minor, therefore, submission has been made that since admittedly at the time of death of the deceased employee the writ petitioner was minor rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner by the competent authority cannot be said to suffer from infirmity. 7. Per contra, Mr. Kaushalendra Prasad, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has vehemently defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He submits that the learned Single Judge has passed the order impugned placing reliance upon a judgment rendered in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar and Others (supra) by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that case also the issue was involved as to whether a minor dependant of the deceased employee on the date of death will be provided appointment and the same has been answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even the minor can be provided appointment on compassionate ground, after becoming major. Taking contrary view therefrom would not be proper and hence the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, this Court, before looking into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to refer certain authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 wherein it has been held that as a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 wherein it has been held that as a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. 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 held by the deceased rather it is for the reason that a death of an employee in harness may take away the source of livelihood of the family. Thus, the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and only if it is satisfied that the family will not be able to meet the crisis, a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. In Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Another, (1996) 1 SCC 301 , Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the object of compassionate appointment held that the object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. In Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Naresh Tanwar and Another, (1996) 8 SCC 23 the Hon'ble Apex Court declined to grant relief to the dependent of an employee who was minor at the time of death of the bread earning Government employee. In State of U.P. and Others vs. Paras Nath, AIR 1998 SC 2612 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. It was further observed that none of these considerations can operate while the application is made after a long period of time. In Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others vs. K.R. Vishwanath, (2005) 7 SCC 206 the Hon'ble Apex Court, after taking into consideration its various judgments, reiterated that the appointment to the public service can only be made on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an exception to general constitutional mandate in the interest of justice under peculiar circumstances. It was further observed that where law prescribes limitation for making an application for compassionate appointment, it has to be adhered to. From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments referred herein above, it is settled proposition that compassionate appointment cannot be considered to be a source of recruitment or another mode of recruitment to government/public service. The object and purpose of compassionate appointment for the dependent of the deceased- Government servant is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family whose sole bread earner died leaving the family in lurch. The purpose is to enable the family to overcome its immediate financial needs. Compassionate appointment cannot be given as a matter of course, and depends upon various factors, including the financial condition of the family of the deceased and other relevant factors. Since compassionate appointment is deviation from the constitutional mandate contemplated by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which permits employment providing equal and fair opportunity to all the eligible persons, it is necessary that the compassionate appointment is regulated by law/rules so as not to nullify the constitutional spirit. 9. Since compassionate appointment is deviation from the constitutional mandate contemplated by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which permits employment providing equal and fair opportunity to all the eligible persons, it is necessary that the compassionate appointment is regulated by law/rules so as not to nullify the constitutional spirit. 9. Further, the issue fell for consideration about applicability of the scheme governing the field for consideration of a case for appointment on compassionate ground in Canara Bank and Another vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 , wherein the question which fell for consideration was whether the scheme passed in 2005 providing for ex-gratia payment or the scheme then in vogue in 1993 providing for compassionate appointment would be applicable in the case (para-12). The issue about applicability of the scheme has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in another judgment rendered in State Bank of India and Others vs. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571 , wherein it has been laid down that the claim of compassionate appointment under a scheme of a particular year cannot be decided in the light of the subsequent scheme that came into force much after the claim. The Hon’ble Apex Court applying the principle laid down in the case of State Bank of India and Others vs. Jaspal Kaur (supra) has considered the factual aspect in the case of Canara Bank and Another vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra), wherein the fact leading to the said case was that the father of the dependent died on 10.10.1998 while he was serving as a clerk in the bank and the dependent has applied timely for compassionate appointment as per the scheme “Dying in Harness Scheme” dated 08.05.1993 which was in force at that time. The bank has rejected the dependent’s claim on 30.06.1999 recording that there are no indigent circumstances for providing employment to the dependent. Again on 07.11.2001, the bank sought for particulars in connection with the issue of the dependent’s employment. In the light of the principles laid down in the case of State Bank of India and Others vs. Jaspal Kaur (supra) the cause of action to be considered for compassionate appointment arose when circular no. 154 of 1993 dated 08.05.1993 was in force. In the light of the principles laid down in the case of State Bank of India and Others vs. Jaspal Kaur (supra) the cause of action to be considered for compassionate appointment arose when circular no. 154 of 1993 dated 08.05.1993 was in force. Thus, as per the judgment referred in State Bank of India and Others vs. Jaspal Kaur (supra), the claim cannot be decided as per 2005 scheme providing for ex-gratia payment. The circular dated 14.02.2005 being an administrative or executive order cannot have retrospective effect so as to take away the right accrued to the respondent as per circular of 1993. 10. It further requires to refer the Circular basis upon which application has been made by the writ petitioner, the dependant, for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground which is a circular issued by the State of Bihar through its Personnel and Administrative Reform Department dated 05.10.1991, which had been adopted by the State of Jharkhand after its bifurcation, which contains a provision for appointment on compassionate ground to be provided in favour of the dependant of the deceased employee who dies in harness. Another Circular was issued on 19.05.1992 by the State of Bihar through its Personnel Administrative Reforms Department wherein issue crept up with respect to the fact that if at the time of death of the deceased employee the dependant, either son or daughter, etc., was minor and after subsequent years becomes major, can his or her case be considered. The Government has taken decision that such case cannot be considered and it should be rejected. 11. In continuation to the Circular dated 19.05.1992 another Circular was issued by the Personnel Administrative Reforms Department and Rajbhasha of the State of Bihar dated 01.11.1993 reiterating the same decision as has been decided in the Circular dated 19.05.1992 as referred above. 12. It requires to refer both the Circulars dated 19.05.1992 and 01.11.1993 having been adopted by the State of Jharkhand after its creation w.e.f. 15.11.2000 in pursuance to the provision as conferred in Section 85 of the State Reorganization Act, 2000. 13. 12. It requires to refer both the Circulars dated 19.05.1992 and 01.11.1993 having been adopted by the State of Jharkhand after its creation w.e.f. 15.11.2000 in pursuance to the provision as conferred in Section 85 of the State Reorganization Act, 2000. 13. It is, thus, evident that there is no provision under the scheme floated by the State of Jharkhand to provide appointment on compassionate ground in favour of a dependant who had been found to be minor at the time of death of the deceased employee as has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment referred hereinabove that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The same is to be provided in terms of the provision of the scheme or the rules which is in vogue or the circular applicable on the basis of which the concerned is making claim for appointment on compassionate ground. No such provision has been given to provide appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the dependant who at the time of death of the employee is found to be minor. Hence, applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove, since admittedly the writ petitioner, on the date of death of her father, was aged 15 years 07 months and 12 days and as per the specific statement made by her at paragraph-6 of the writ petition the writ petitioner attained her majority on 16.12.2007 while the date of death of her father is 09.04.2001, she cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of being minor at the relevant point of time. 14. The issue of rejection of the claim has been agitated by the writ petitioner before this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has, however, quashed the impugned decision passed by the authority relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar and Others (supra), Mrs. The learned Single Judge has, however, quashed the impugned decision passed by the authority relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar and Others (supra), Mrs. Darshana Poddar, learned AAG-I has raised serious objection about the applicability of the said judgment on the ground that the aforesaid judgment, since, has been passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which would be evident from the contents of the order, therefore, the same cannot be made applicable in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a High Court. 15. This Court, has proceeded to examine the contention of the learned AAG-I and has gone through the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar and Others (supra) wherefrom it is evident that the factual aspect leading to the aforesaid case was that the father of the appellant was working as a peon in the Public Works Department of the Government of Bihar who died in harness on 12.09.1991 leaving behind the widow and five minor children. After the death of the appellant's father the appellant's mother submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 02.04.1993. The application was within time but it was rejected for the reason that it was not in the prescribed proforma. The appellant herein was a child aged about 9 years at the time of the death of his father, who has submitted an application on 07.09.1995. The said application was rejected by the authorities on 12-10-2001 by holding that the appellant at the time of filing the application was aged only 13 years, 03 months and 23 days old and, therefore, he could not be appointed in government service. The appellant challenged the rejection of his application by way of a writ petition. Both the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have rejected the same on the ground that the application was belated as it should have been filed within five years from the date of death of the employee which was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Both the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have rejected the same on the ground that the application was belated as it should have been filed within five years from the date of death of the employee which was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court. It further appears from the aforesaid judgment that the application filed by the widow of the deceased employee was rejected without giving any reason, however, the State submitted that the same must have been rejected as it was not under the prescribed format. If the applicant had not submitted an application in the prescribed format the State authorities could have asked appellant to submit application in the prescribed format giving out the details of the procedure. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of compassionate appointment that the authority should extend the service in an effective manner so that the eligible candidate may avail the opportunity. Though the orders of rejection of the application of the appellant’s mother was not challenged, the appellant pursued the matter and submitted the application later. The contention of the counsel for the State was that the application filed after five years after the date of death of the government employee will not be considered and he further submitted that the application filed on 07.09.1995 was rightly rejected by the authorities but the aforesaid contention was not accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the ground that the widow had applied for appointment within the prescribed period and without assigning any reason the same was rejected. When the appellant submitted the application he was 13 years old and the application was rejected after a period of six years and that too without giving any reason and the reason given by the authority was incorrect as at the time of the rejection of the application he must have crossed 18 years of age and could have been considered for appointment. Of course, in the rules framed by the State there is no specific provision as to what should be done in case the dependants would be minor and there would be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting application, therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, direction was passed by Hon'ble Apex Court to give proper appointment within a reasonable time. 16. This Court, after going through the aforesaid judgment, has found therefrom that the said judgment has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case, meaning thereby, it is under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do substantial justice to the parties which is distinguishable on the facts of this case since the Hon'ble Apex Court on the fact of the aforesaid case has taken into consideration the fact that in the rules framed by the State there is no specific provision as to what should be done in case the dependants are minor and there would be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting application but here the State Government has already come out with two Circulars, i.e. Circulars dated 09.05.1992 and 01.11.1993, in continuation to the Circular dated 05.10.1991 containing the provision of appointment on compassionate ground. Both speak that the cases of the minor dependants at the time of death of the deceased employee is not required to be considered and it is to be rejected and as such herein there is specific circular issued by the State Government, as such the judgment rendered in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar and Others (supra) will also not be applicable on the ground of availability of both the Circulars, i.e. Circulars dated 09.05.1992 and 01.11.1993. 17. We have also through a judgment rendered by a coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 714 of 2018 wherein also the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar and Others (supra) has been taken into consideration but the coordinate Division Bench has considered it a judgment rendered in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do substantial justice by referring to paragraph 6 of the judgment and came to conclusion that the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India do not constitute precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. In view of the judgment rendered by coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 714 of 2018, we see no reason to make different opinion by going through the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar and Others (supra), more particularly, by considering the factual aspect as also paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment and hence according to our considered view, applying the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution by High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be proper since Article 142 of the Constitution of India confers power upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable through the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and until provision in that behalf is so made in such manner as the President may by order prescribe, meaning thereby, for doing complete justice Hon’ble Supreme Court has been conferred with power under the Constitution of India to pass such order. The issue with respect to the distinction between the exercise of jurisdiction vested before the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 136 as against Article 142 has been dealt with by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher), (2014) 8 SCC 883 wherein at paragraphs 8 and 12 it has been observed which reads hereunder as: “8. In our view, the law laid down in Chandi Prasad Uniyal case, no way conflicts with the observations made by this Court in the other two cases. In those decisions, directions were issued in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, but in the subsequent decision this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, in laying down the law had dismissed the petition of the employee. This Court in a number of cases had battled with tracing the contours of the provision in Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India. This Court in a number of cases had battled with tracing the contours of the provision in Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India. Distinctively, although the words employed under the two aforesaid provisions speak of the powers of this Court, the former vest a plenary jurisdiction in the Supreme Court in the matter of entertaining and hearing of appeals by granting special leave against any judgment or order made by a court or tribunal in any cause or matter. The powers are plenary to the extent that they are paramount to the limitations under the specific provisions for appeal contained in the Constitution or other laws. Article 142 of the Constitution of India, on the other hand is a step ahead of the powers envisaged under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, on the other hand is a step ahead of the powers envisaged under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It is the exercise of jurisdiction to pass such enforceable decree or order as is necessary for doing “complete justice” in any cause or matter. 12. Article 142 of the Constitution of India is supplementary in nature and cannot supplant the substantive provisions, though they are not limited by the substantive provisions in the statute. It is a power that gives preference to equity over law. It is a justice-oriented approach as against the strict rigours of the law. The directions issued by the Court can normally be categorized into one, in the nature of moulding of relief and the other, as the declaration of law. “Declaration of law” as contemplated in Article 141 of the Constitution: is the speech express or necessarily implied by the highest court of the land. This Court in Indian Bank vs. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd. and Ram Pravesh Singh vs. State of Bihar and in State of U.P. vs. Neeraj Awasthi has expounded the principle and extolled the power of Article 142 of the Constitution of India to new heights by laying down that the directions issued under Article 142 do not constitute a binding precedent unlike Article 141 of the Constitution of India. They are direction issued to do proper justice and exercise of such power, cannot be considered as law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. They are direction issued to do proper justice and exercise of such power, cannot be considered as law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Court has compartmentalized and differentiated the relief in the operative portion of the judgment by exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution as against the law declared. The directions of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, while moulding the relief, that relax the application of law or exempt the case in hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances do not comprise the ratio decidendi and therefore lose its basic premise of making it a binding precedent. This Court on the qui vive has expanded the horizons of Article 142 of the Constitution by keeping it outside the purview of Article 141 of the Constitution and by declaring it a direction of the Court that changes its complexion with the peculiarity in the facts and circumstances of the case.” It is, thus, evident that the power to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution of India was far beyond the power vested to the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141. 18. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law since has been passed placing reliance upon a judgment rendered under Article 142 of the Constitution of India sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and further the learned Single Judge has erroneously issued a direction to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground even though she was minor at the time of death of the deceased employee without appreciating the Circulars dated 09.05.1992 and 01.11.1993 which specifically bar the consideration of appointment of the minor at the time of death of the employee. 19. In view thereof, we find patent illegality in the impugned order/judgment, accordingly, the same is set aside. 20. In consequence thereof, the instant appeal is allowed and the writ petition stands dismissed. 21. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stands dismissed.