JUDGMENT : With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. 2. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent is preferred against the order/judgment dated 11.04.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1331 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition quashed the decision of the administrative authority as contained in order dated 03.01.2012, by which appointment on compassionate ground in favour of son of the writ petitioner was declined, with a direction to the respondents-authorities to assess the suitability of the writ petitioner for appointment on a suitable post within eight weeks. 3. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under: The eldest son of the petitioner, namely, Irfan Ahmed joined Bihar Police in the year 1993, as would appear from letter dated 20.10.1993, Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The said Irfan Ahmed while posted at Hariharganj Police Station, sleeping in the Barrack, died of heart attack on 30.11.2006, as would be evident from the death certificate, Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner submitted a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Palamau for appointment of his second son, namely, Rizwan Ahmed Warshi, on compassionate ground in the event of death of his elder son, namely, Irfan Ahmed, but the respondents-authorities rejected the claim of the writ petitioner vide order dated 03.01.2012 on the ground that benefit of appointment on compassionate ground to the dependent brother and unmarried sister of the deceased police personnel is only to be extended in case of death due to extremist/Naxalite attack but herein the deceased police personnel died of heart attack as such the brother of the deceased police personnel is not eligible to get appointment on compassionate ground. Being aggrieved with order dated 03.01.2012, the writ petitioner approached before this Court by filing writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 3264 of 2016, in which vide order dated 10.02.2017 the writ Court granted liberty to file a fresh/amended writ petition. Being aggrieved with order dated 03.01.2012, the writ petitioner approached before this Court by filing writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 3264 of 2016, in which vide order dated 10.02.2017 the writ Court granted liberty to file a fresh/amended writ petition. With the liberty aforesaid, the writ petitioner filed writ petition being W.P. (S) 1331 of 2017 by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents-State taking stand inter alia that the benefit under Circular dated 01.12.2015 for ‘Scheme of appointment on compassionate ground’ cannot be extended to the second/younger son of petitioner for the reason that the deceased police personnel died in the year 2006 prior to coming into force of Circular dated 01.12.2015. However, learned Single taking note of the fact that date on which the claim for compassionate appointment for younger son of the petitioner was fully rejected is 28.02.2018, as such benefit under Circular dated 01.12.2015 accrued to him and accordingly quashed the impugned order dated 03.01.2012, by which claim of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground in favour of son of the writ petitioner was declined, and directed the respondent to assess the suitability of the writ petitioner for appointment on a suitable post within eight weeks, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal. 4. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned A.A.G. II appearing for the appellants-State of Jharkhand while assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge has submitted that the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has travelled towards wrong direction as claim of the writ petitioner was already rejected on 03.01.2012, the day when the circular dated 05.10.1991 was in vogue which contains no provision to provide appointment on compassionate ground in favour of brother of the deceased-employee. His further submission is that the learned Single Judge has considered case of the writ petitioner on the basis of subsequent circular dated 01.12.2015, which contains a provision to provide appointment on compassionate ground even to the brother of the deceased-employee and applying the aforesaid circular retrospectively command was issued upon the respondents-authorities to appoint the writ petitioner on compassionate ground, that too merely on the ground of one communication dated 28.02.2018 holding it final order of rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground of her son as such benefit under Circular 2015 accrued to him, which cannot be said to be correct proposition as the claim of the writ petitioner was already rejected on 03.01.2012. Therefore, submission has been made that appeal may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order passed by learned Single Judge holding the order passed by the respondents-authorities as proper. It has further been submitted that admittedly herein the concerned employee died in the year 2006 and the writ petitioner approached before this Court for the first time in the year 2016 i.e. after ten years of the death of the deceased-employee seeking appointment on compassionate ground, which itself suggests that it is not a fit case to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment in favour of writ petitioner as the basic object and intent of appointment on compassionate ground is to tide over the immediate difficulties arisen due to sudden demise of the bread-earner and if the dependent of the employee survives even after the period of ten years, the basic intent and object to provide appointment on compassionate ground will be said to be not available and in that circumstances, if appointment on compassionate ground would be provided, it will be contrary to the basic object and intent of appointment on compassionate ground. 5. Per contra, Mr. Vikash Kishore, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent giving emphasis upon communication dated 28.02.2018 has submitted that the day when communication dated 28.02.2018 was issued the circular dated 01.12.2015 was in vogue as such it will be considered to be pending dispute hence, in the pending consideration, the learned Single Judge had made applicable the provision of the subsequent circular i.e. Circular of 2015 and as such direction was issued commanding upon the respondents-authorities, the appellants herein, for appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 7. We, before going across the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to reflect certain admitted facts in this case: Admittedly herein the elder son of the writ petitioner, who was unmarried, while servicing the police force, died of heart attack on 30.11.2006. Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner submitted representation before the respondents-authorities seeking appointment on compassionate ground for her second son, namely, Rizwan Ahmed Warshi on the ground that after the death of her elder son, who was the bread-earner of the family, now she is dependent on her second son. But her representation was rejected vide order dated 03.01.2012 on the ground that the circular which was in vogue on the date of death of the deceased-employee was having no provision to provide appointment on compassionate ground to brother of the deceased-employee. The writ petitioner questioning the aforesaid decision of the respondents-authorities approached this Court by filing writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 1331 of 2017, wherein the learned Single Judge taking reference of communication dated 28.02.2018 which was annexed as Annexure B to the counter affidavit, whereby the respondents-authorities came to the conclusion that younger son of the writ petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground, has held that since claim of the writ petitioner was fully rejected on 28.02.2018, as such benefit under Circular dated 01.12.2015 accrued to him which contains a provision to provide appointment on compassionate ground even to brother of deceased-employee. Accordingly, learned Single Judge quashed the impugned order dated 03.01.2012 and directed the respondent to assess the suitability of the petitioner for appointment on a suitable post, which is questioned before us. 8. In the backdrop of these factual aspects the issues which fell for consideration before us are as to: (i).Whether the communication dated 28.02.2018 can be considered to be pending consideration of the claim of the writ petitioner? (ii).Whether once the decision has been taken to reject the claim of the writ petitioner vide order dated 03.01.2012, can the appointment on compassionate ground be provided on the basis of circular dated 01.12.2015? 9. Since both the issues are inter-linked, they are taken up together. (ii).Whether once the decision has been taken to reject the claim of the writ petitioner vide order dated 03.01.2012, can the appointment on compassionate ground be provided on the basis of circular dated 01.12.2015? 9. Since both the issues are inter-linked, they are taken up together. This Court in order to answer to aforesaid issues think it just and proper to refer the relevant rule/circular, which was in vogue at the time of death of the deceased-employee. The relevant portion of circular dated 05.10.1991 is quoted hereunder as: ^^funs'kkuqlkj dguk gS fd vc rd lsok&dky esa fdlh ljdkjh lsod dh e`R;q gksus ij e`r ljdkjh lsodksa ds vkfJr dks oxZ 3,oa 4 ds inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq dkfeZd,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx }kjk fuxZr lHkh vuqns'kksa dh miØkflr djrs gq, ljdkj us ;g fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr dh izfØ;kvksa dks bl izdkj ljy,oa izHkkodkjh cuk;k tk; fd ljdkjh lsod ds e`R;ksijkUr mlds vkfJr dks fdlh foyEc ds oxZ&3 ds inksa vFkok oxZ&4 ds inksa ij fu;qfDr fey ldsA bl mnr ls ljdkj us fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fy;k gS& ¼1½ fdlh dk p;u gks ldrk gS % ¼d½ vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr dk ykHkol e`r ljdkjh lsod ds,d gh fu;qfDr dks vuqekU; gksxk ftldh e`R;q lsokdky esa gqbZ gSA ¼[k½ blls ljdkjh lsod mls gh ekuk tk;sxk ftldh fu;qfDr] lacaf/kr in ij fof/kor dh xbZ gksA ¼x½ e`r ljdkjh lsodksa ds vkfJrksa dks gh vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr dh tk ldrh gSA vkfJr ds vUrxZr dsoy iq= dh vfookfgr iq=h rFkk iq= dh fo/kok iRuh lfEefyr jgsaxh nekn] Hkrhtk vkfn dks vkfJr ugha ekuk tk;sxkA ¼?k½ vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fuEufyf[kr izkFkfedrk ds vuqlkj fdu vkfJr dh fu;qfDr dh tk ldrh gSA ¼1½ e`r ljdkjh lsod dh iRuhA ¼2½ iq=A ¼3½ vfookfgr iq=hA ¼4½ iq= dh fo/kok iRuhA ¼M-½ ifr&iRuh nksuksa ljdkjh lsok esa gks vkSj fdlh dkj.ko'k nksuksa dh e`R;q gks tk; rks oSlh fLFkfr esa vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij muds ifjokj ds fdlh vkfJr dks ugha feysxkA ¼p½ ;fn efgyk ljdkjh lsok esa gks vkSj muds ifr ljdkjh lsok esa dk;Zjr ugha gks rks efgyk ljdkjh lsod dh e`R;q dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr dk ykHk 10. It is evident from the stipulation made in the aforesaid circular that brother has been excluded for providing appointment on compassionate ground in case of death of the employee in harness. It is evident from the stipulation made in the aforesaid circular that brother has been excluded for providing appointment on compassionate ground in case of death of the employee in harness. The scheme as per the circular dated 05.10.1991 was in vogue up-till its supersession by the new circular of the year 2015 which has come into being on 01.12.2015. The relevant portion of Circular dated 01.12.2015 is quoted as under: vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr dh ;kstuk ¼1½ mn~ns';&lsokdky esa ljdkjh lsodks ds vlkef;d fu/ku ds mijkUr muds vkfJr ifjokj ds thfodksiktZu dk vk/kkj vpkud lekIr gks tkus ds dkj.k ml ifjokj dks vkfFkZd ladV ls mckjuk rFkk ifjokj dks rr~{k.k vkfFkZd lgk;rk igq¡pk;k tkuk bl ;kstuk dk mn~ns'; gSA ¼2½ bl ;kstuk dk ykHk fdls izkIr gks ldrk gS \ bl ifji= dh dafMdk 4 esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lacaf/kr e`r ljdkjh lsod dk ifjokj ftldh ?kks"k.kk rngsrq fufgr izi= IV esa ljdkjh lsod }kjk le; le; ij dh xbZ gksA ¼4½ vkfJr ifjokj ls D;k rkRi;Z gS \ ljdkjh lsod ds fuEufyf[kr lnL; lh/ks vkfJr ekus tk;saxs& ¼1½ iRuh@ifr %& ;Fkk fLFkfrA ¼2½ iq=@fo/kok iq=o/kwA ¼3½ vfookfgr@fo/kok@rykd'kqnk@ifjR;Drk iq=h,oa fookfgr iq=h tks ljdkjh lsod dh e`R;q ds le; mlij iw.kZr;k vkfJr jgh gksA ¼4½ nÙkd iq=@nÙkd vfookfgr iq=h ¼fgUnq,MI'ku,.M esaVsusUl,DV 1956 ds izko/kku ds vuqlkj½ vfookfgr ljdkjh lsod ds ekeys esa & ¼5½ ekrk@firk ¼6½ vfookfgr HkkbZ@vfookfgr cgu izHkko,oa foLrkj ;g ;kstuk jkT; ljdkj ds v/khu lHkh yksd miØeksa@Lo'kklh fudk;ksa@izkf/kdkjksa@fuxeksa@ifj"knksa ;k jkT; lEcksf/kr laLFkkvksa ij iw.kZ :i ls ykxw ekuh tk,xhA yksd midzeksa@Lo'kklh fudk;ksa@izkf/kdkjksa@ fuxeksa@ifj"knksa ;k jkT; lEiksf"kr laLFkkvksa ds jkT; Lrjh; dk;kZy; ds ekeys eas dsUnzh; vuqdEik lfefr rFkk muds {ks=h; dk;kZy; ds ekeys eas ftyk Lrjh; vuqdEik lfefr dh vuq'kalk izkIr dh tk;sxhA ijUrq ;g fd lacaf/kr laLFkkuksa ls izkIr vuqdEik laca/kh izLrko ds vkyksd esa vuqdEik lfefr mlh laLFkku }kjk izfrosfnr fjfDr ds fo:) fu;qfDr dh vuq'kalk fd;k djsxhA It is evident from the circular of 2015 that provision has been made by including the brother of the deceased-employee for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground in case of death in harness. Further, it is admitted fact that Circular, 2015 came into being on 01.12.2015 while the brother of the claimant died in harness on 30.11.2006. Further, it is admitted fact that Circular, 2015 came into being on 01.12.2015 while the brother of the claimant died in harness on 30.11.2006. It is further evident from Circular dated 01.12.2015 that there is provision of repeal and saving to the effect that the ‘scheme of appointment on compassionate ground’ will be applicable on all State government Public Sector Undertaking/Corporations/Councils etc. and all appointment on compassionate ground will be made on the recommendation of Committee for Compassionate appointment; meaning thereby the appointment on compassionate ground has been given its prospective application as would appear from bare reading of the aforesaid circular/scheme without making it applicable with retrospective effect. 11. There is no dispute that the appointment on compassionate ground is in the teeth of provision of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others Vrs. K.R. Vishwanath [ (2005) 7 SCC 206 ], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court taking into consideration its various judgment in paragraph 9 held as under: “9.As was observed in State of Haryana v. Rani Devi [ (1996) 5 SCC 308 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1162 : AIR 1996 SC 2445 ], it need not be pointed out that the claim of person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that he was dependant on the deceased employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Die-in-harness scheme cannot be made applicable to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee. In Rani Devi case [ (1996) 5 SCC 308 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1162 : AIR 1996 SC 2445 ] it was held that scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. In Rani Devi case [ (1996) 5 SCC 308 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1162 : AIR 1996 SC 2445 ] it was held that scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. In LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar [ (1994) 2 SCC 718 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 737 : (1994) 27 ATC 174] it was pointed out that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplates such appointments. It was noted in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [ (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 : (1994) 27 ATC 537] that as a rule in public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.” 12. So far applicability of the Scheme, upon the death of the bread earner seeking compassionate appointment is concerned it has also been laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India & Ors. Vrs. Jaspal Kaur, [ (2007) 9 SCC 571 ] 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 State Bank of India & Ors. Vrs. Jaspal Kaur (supra) has considered the factual aspect in Canara Bank and Anr. Vrs. The Hon’ble Apex Court applying the principle laid down in State Bank of India & Ors. Vrs. Jaspal Kaur (supra) has considered the factual aspect in Canara Bank and Anr. Vrs. M. Mahesh Kumar [ (2015) 7 SCC 412 ], 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 State Bank of India & Ors. Vrs. 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 & Ors. Vrs. 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. 13. In view of the discussion as has been made herein above, since the writ petitioner has made application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of circular dated 05.10.1991 and the circular dated 01.12.2015 being the subsequent one which has been issued after the death of the son of the writ petitioner herein, as such, circular dated 01.12.2015 will not have its retrospective application. 14. It would also be relevant to refer that in the very second paragraph of circular dated 01.12.2015, which is in supersession to the earlier circular dated 05.10.1991, it has been stipulated that henceforth in place of circular dated 05.10.1991, the circular dated 01.12.2015 will be applicable. 14. It would also be relevant to refer that in the very second paragraph of circular dated 01.12.2015, which is in supersession to the earlier circular dated 05.10.1991, it has been stipulated that henceforth in place of circular dated 05.10.1991, the circular dated 01.12.2015 will be applicable. For ready reference, the part of the said content of the circular dated 01.12.2015 is being quoted as under:- ^^bl laca/k esa ifjofrZr fLFkfr,oa izHkkoh ifji=ksa ds vk/kkj ij dkjZokbZ lsa mRiUu dfBukbZ;ksa dks n`f"ViFk esa j[krs gq, lE;d~ fopkjksijkUr jkT; esa vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr vc fuEufyf[kr ;kstuk ds vuq:i djrs dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS^^ So far as the fact of the present case is concerned, admittedly the death of the bread earner occurred on 30.11.2006, the day when the circular 05.10.1991 was in vogue, which contains no provision for extending the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground in favour of brother of the bread earner in case of his death, who happens to be brother of the deceased-employee and as such considering the provision of appointment on compassionate ground as contained in circular dated 01.12.2015 which contains a provision that henceforth the appointment on compassionate ground will be made on the basis of Circular 2015 meaning thereby prior to 01.12.2015 the circular dated 05.10.1991 was applicable. Thus considering the date of death of the brother of the claimant who died in harness on 30.11.2006, on that date the circular dated 05.10.1991 since was in force which contains no provision for appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the brother of the deceased-employee, as such brother of the deceased employee cannot be provided appointment on compassionate ground and considering that aspect of the matter the administrative authority, while passing order on 03.01.2012, has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner, and rightly so as appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided on the basis of the mandates of the scheme which was in vogue on the date of death of the deceased-employee, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case laws referred above. The ground which has been taken by learned counsel for the writ petitioner before the writ Court based upon which the learned Single Judge has passed the order allowing the writ petition is to the effect that final order on the application for compassionate appointment of second son of the writ petitioner was passed on 28.02.2018 considering the claim of the writ petitioner to be pending consideration and since as on 28.02.2018 the circular dated 01.12.2015 was in vogue therefore, provision as contained in circular dated 01.12.2015 has been made applicable. 15. This Court, in order to scrutinize as to whether the communication dated 25.02.2018 can be considered to be a decision since writ petitioner herself had questioned the decision of the administrative authority dated 03.01.2012 whereby claim for appointment on compassionate ground of her younger son was rejected, as would be evident from prayer of the writ petitioner, which has been incorporated by the learned Single Judge in the first paragraph of the impugned order, has gone across the communication dated 28.02.2018, which has been brought on record as Annexure B to the counter affidavit issued under the signature of D.I.G. (Budget), Jharkhand, Ranchi addressed to Superintendent of Police, Palamau in response to the guideline sought for in course of pendency of the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1331 of 2017. For ready reference, contents of communication dated 28.02.2018 is quoted hereunder as: ^^funs'kkuqlkj mi;qZDr izklafxd fo"k; ds lanHkZ esa lwfpr djuk gS fd e`r iqfyl 254 Lo0 bjQku vgen dh e`R;q fnukad&30-11-2006 dks gqbZ FkhA rnksijkar dkfeZd] iz'kklfud lq/kkj rFkk jktHkk"kk foHkkx] >kj[k.M] jk¡ph ds ifji= la[;k&10167¼vuq0½ fnukad&01-12-2015 ds df.Mdk&4 ds vuqlkj vfookfgr e`r ljdkjh lsod ds ekeys esa muds vkfJr vfookfgr HkkbZ@cgu dks vuqdEik dk ykHk ns; gksrk gSA ijUrq Lo0 vgen dh e`R;q o"kZ&2006 esa gqbZ gSA vr% muds ekeys dks dkfeZd] iz'kklfud lq/kkj rFkk jktHkk"kk foHkkx ds mDr izko/kku ls vkPNkfnr ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS rFkk mDr ykHk ns; ugha gS,oa ekeyk fopkj.kh; ugha gSA It is evident from the contents, as quoted and referred herein above, that as per Clause 4 of the Circular dated 01.12.2015 in case of death of unmarried government servant, the unmarried sister and brother will have right of consideration of appointment on compassionate ground but the concerned employee died on 30.11.2006, therefore the aforesaid circular dated 01.12.2015 will not be applicable and hence the matter is not under consideration, which suggests that as on 28.02.2018 no matter for claim of appointment on compassionate ground in favour of brother of the deceased employee was pending consideration before the concerned authority and it cannot be since it was the specific case of the writ petitioner that her claim was rejected as on 03.01.2012 and that is the reason aforesaid order 03.01.2012 was assailed by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1331 of 2017. 16. Therefore, our considered view the consideration made by learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition which is based upon communication dated 28.02.2018 treating it to be pending consideration of the claim of the writ petitioner cannot be considered to be correct approach, as such there is no question of applicability of the circular dated 01.12.2015 in the case at hand since his case was already rejected on 03.01.2012 on the basis of circular dated 05.10.1991. 17. Both the issues framed by this Court are answered accordingly. 18. In view of the discussions made herein above, according to our considered view the order passed by the learned Single judge cannot be said to be sustainable in the eye of law and, therefore, the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. 19. 17. Both the issues framed by this Court are answered accordingly. 18. In view of the discussions made herein above, according to our considered view the order passed by the learned Single judge cannot be said to be sustainable in the eye of law and, therefore, the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. 19. Accordingly, order dated 11.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1331 of 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. 20. In the result, the letters patent appeal is allowed and the connected writ petition stands dismissed. 21. Consequent upon the disposal of the letters patent appeal, I.A. No. 6948 of 2018 and I.A. No. 6215 of 2020 stand disposed of.