JUDGMENT : ARUN KUMAR JHA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present L.P.A. is directed against the judgment dated 25.08.2022 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6471 of 2021 by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the civil writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 3. In the amended writ petition, the appellant-petitioner has sought following relief: “(i) To issue an appropriate orders directions including a writ preferably in the Nature of Mandamus commanding and directions upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of choukidar on compassionate ground whose father opted voluntary retirements and nominated in favour of his son. (ii) To direct the respondents to appoint on compassionate ground in terms of circular as contained in memo no. 5444 dated 22.06.2018 of Department of the (Home) Police Bihar Patna. (iii) To issue an appropriate orders, directions including a writ preferably in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decision of the District Compassionate Committee held on 05.08.2019 headed by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur whereby and whereunder claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment has been rejected. (iv) To any other reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the appellant, while working as Chaukidar, made an application in terms of Clause 3 (Gha) of the Bihar Chaukidar Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2014 (in short 2014, Rules) for voluntary retirement on 18.02.2015 to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur in order to appoint his son on compassionate ground, who was dependent upon him. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee headed by the District Magistrate in its meeting dated 05.08.2019 rejected the claim of compassionate appointment taking into the consideration the fact that the father of the appellant had applied after the date of retirement. Thereafter, the petitioner (appellant herein) preferred C.W.J.C. No. 6471 of 2021. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition. Hence, the present L.P.A. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner (appellant herein) preferred C.W.J.C. No. 6471 of 2021. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition. Hence, the present L.P.A. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the father of the appellant had made his application on 18.02.2015 well in advance in the light of 2014, Rules seeking voluntary retirement, though his date of retirement was 30.06.2015 and it was the authority which ought to have taken necessary steps to either accept or reject the said application before the date of retirement and for no fault of appellant’s father, appellant cannot be denied benefit of appointment. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed error in dismissing C.W.J.C. No. 6471 of 2021. In the result C.W.J.C. No. 6471 of 2021 to be allowed. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that no interference in the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge is called for as the same has been passed after taking notice of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents-authorities wherein a specific stand has been taken that the application of the father of the appellant for appointment under 2014, Rules was not received prior to his voluntary retirement and such stand has not been denied or disputed as no rejoinder or reply to the counter affidavit has been filed. Thus, the application was not filed within stipulated time as prescribed under 2014, Rules. 7. Having considered the material available on record and further considering the rival submission, in the present case, the short point for consideration is as to whether the father of the appellant having made his application for voluntary retirement with a request for appointing his son ought to have been allowed by the respondents in the light of the 2014, Rules. 8. The said application was made under the relevant provisions of the Notification/Memo No. 1/Cho-90-01/2014 Gri-A-1896/Patna dated 05.03.2014 (Annexure-F to the counter affidavit). 8. The said application was made under the relevant provisions of the Notification/Memo No. 1/Cho-90-01/2014 Gri-A-1896/Patna dated 05.03.2014 (Annexure-F to the counter affidavit). The text of the aforesaid notification is extracted hereunder: ^^fcgkj ljdkj x`g ¼vkj{kh½ foHkkx vf/klwpuk la[;k&1@pkSŒ&90&01@2014 x`ŒvkŒ-----------------@iVuk] fnukad----------------- Hkkjr & lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 309 ds ijarqd }kjk ÁnRr 'kfDr;ksa dk Á;ksx djrs gq, fcgkj jkT;iky ,rn~ }kjk fcgkj pkSdhnkj laoxZ fu;ekoyh] 2006 dk la'kks/ku djrs gsrq fuEufyf[kr fu;ekoyh cukrs gS%& 1- laf{kIr uke] foLrkj ,oa ÁkjEHk% ¼1½ ;g fu;ekoyh fcgkj pkSdhnkj laoxZ ¼la'kks/ku½ fu;ekoyh] 2014 dh tk ldsxhA ¼2½ bldk foLrkj laiw.kZ fcgkj jkT; esa gksxkA ¼3½ ;g rqjar Áo`r gksxkA 2- mDr fu;ekoyh] 2006 ds fu;e&2 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds ckn fuEufyf[kr mifu;e Øe'k% ¼6½ ,oa ¼7½ tksM+s tk;saxs ;Fkk%& ^^¼6½ LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fRr ds ik= O;fDr ls vfHkÁsr gS oSls pkSdhnkj@nQknkj ftldh vgZd lsok 20 o"kksZ dh gks x;h gks rFkk mudh mez 55 o"kZ ls de u gksA ¼7½ vkfJr ls vfHkÁsr gS ljdkjh lsod dh iRuh] iq=] vfookfgr iq=h ,oa fo/kok iq=&o/kq ftlus iquZfookg u dh gksA 3- mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e&5 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku fd;s tk;saxs%& ¼ÁFke½ mifu;e ¼2½ esa Á;qDr 'kCn ^^vkBoh** dks 'kCn ^^nloha vFkok led{k** }kjk ÁfrLFkkfir fd;k tk;sxkA\ ¼f}rh;½ mifu;e ¼7½ ds ckn fuEufyf[kr ijarqd tksM+s tk;saxs] ;Fkk%& ^^ijarqd& ¼d½ pkSdhnkj loaxZ ds deZpkjh viuh ok/kZD; lsokfuo`fRr dh frfFk ls de ls de ,d ekg iwoZ ds ÁHkko ls LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk ,oa pkSdhnkj in ij vius }kjk ukfer fdlh vkfJr dks fu;ksftr djus ds fy, vkosnu dj ldsxkA ¼[k½ lkekU; Á'kklu foHkkx }kjk le;≤ ij vo/kkfjr U;wure ,oa vf/kdre mez&lhek laca/kh Áko/kku mu ij ykxw jgsxkA ¼x½ LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk ds i'pkr~ fu;qDr O;fDr ds vkfJr dks bl ijUrqd dk YkkHk vuqekU; ugha gksxkA ¼?k½ LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk dk bPNqd pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds O;fDr dks lsokfuo`fÙk dh viuh bfPNr frfFk ls de ls de ,d ekg iwoZ vius inLFkkiu ftyk ds ftyk inkf/kdkjh dk viuk vkosnu nsuk gksxkA^^ fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls gLrk{kj@& ¼jktho jatu flUgk½ vij lfpo x`g foHkkx Kkikad%&1@pkSŒ&90&01@2014 x`ŒvkŒ 1896@iVuk] fnukad 05-03-2014 Áfrfyfi%& v/kh{kd jktdh; eqæ.kky; xqytkj ckx fcgkj] iVuk@bZ&xtV dks"kkax] foRr foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk dk lhŒMhŒ ds lkFk fcgkj xtV ds vlk/kkj.k vad esa Ádk'kukFkZ Ásf"krA 2- muls vuqjks/k gS fd xtV dh 500 Áfr;ka x`g ¼vkj{kh½ foHkkx dks miyC/k djk;h tk;A gLrk{kj@& vij lfpo x`g foHkkxA** 9. It appears from Clause 3 (d) of the said notification that the application for such request should have been made one month prior to the date of voluntary retirement, though it appears that the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting dated 02.09.2019 resolved to reject the application of the father of the appellant on the ground that the application of the father of the appellant was received after his retirement. 10. This Court has also taken note of the judgment dated 03.09.2019 of this Court passed in L.P.A. No. 785 of 2018 in C.W.J.C. No. 13561 of 2017 which was relied on by the respondents, in a similar matter, from which it appears that a clarificatory letter has been issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Home (Police) dated 22nd June, 2018 wherein the State Government after considering the queries has given the following clarification at Para (2) with regard to the amended provisions of 2014. In the said clarification, the State Government has issued directions in the following manner: ^^i= la[;k&8@pkSŒ&90&06@2018 x`ŒvkŒ 3444 fcgkj ljdkj x`g foHkkx ¼vkj{kh 'kk[kk½ Ás"kd] fxjh'k eksgu Bkdqj] ljdkj ds voj lfpo lsok esa] lHkh ftyk inkf/kdkjh] fcgkj] iVukA iVuk] fnukad 22 twu 2018 fo"k;%& pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds lnL;ksa }kjk LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk ds mijkar ukfer vkfJrksa dh pkSdhnkj ds in ij fu;qfDr ds laca/k esaA egksn;] funs'kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd fcgkj pkSdhnkj laoxZ ¼la'kks/ku½ fu;ekoyh] 2014 }kjk pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds oSls dfeZ;ksa ftudh vgZd lsok 20 o"kksZ dh gks xbZ gks rFkk ftudh mez 55 o"kZ ls de ugha gks] dks ;g lqfo/kk Ánku dh xbZ gS fd ,slk dehZ viuh ok/kZD; lsok fuo`fÙk dh frfFk ds de ls de ,d ekg igys dh frfFk ls LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk vksihVh dj ldrk gS vkSj vksihVh dh xbZ mDr frfFk ds de ls de ,d ekg igys vius }kjk ukfer vkfJr dh pkSdhnkj ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq vius ftyk ds ftyk inkf/kdkjh dks vkosnu ns ldrk gSA 2- mDr Áko/kku ds vkyksd esa fofHkUu ftyksa esa pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds dfeZ;ksa }kjk LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk dh bPNk O;Dr dj vius ukfer vkfJrksa dh fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu fd;s tkrs gSa vkSj lacaf/kr ftyk inkf/kdkjh }kjk ,sls vkosnuksa ds laca/k esa mDr Áko/kku ds vkyksd esa ;Fkksfpr fu.kZ; fy;s tkrs gSA mDr Øe esa fofHkUu ftyk inkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk le;≤ ij ,sls ekeyksa ds laca/k esa dfri; ekxZn'kZu dh ekax dh tkrh gS] ftuesa ls dqN ekeys fuEuor gS%& ¼1½ pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds dehZ }kjk LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk dh bPNk O;Dr dj vius ukfer vkfJr dh pkSdhnkj ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq lle; vkosnu fd;k x;kA bfPNr LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk fd frfFk ds ckn muds }kjk dk;Z djuk can dj fn;k x;k fdUrq muds ok/kZD; lsok fuo`fÙk ds frfFk rd mudh LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk ,oa vkfJr dh fu;qDr ls lacaf/kr vkosnu dk fu"iknu ftyk inkf/kdkjh }kjk ugha fd;k tk ldkA ¼2½ pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds dehZ }kjk LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk dh bPNk O;Dr dj vius ukfer vkfJr dh pkSdhnkj ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq lle; vkosnu fd;k x;kA vkosnu ds mijkar Hkh mDr dehZ }kjk viuh ok/kZD; lsok fuo`fÙk dh frfFk rd dk;Z fd;k x;k ijUrq mDr vof/k dk osru ÁkIr ugha fd;k x;kA ok/kZD; lsok fuo`fÙk ds ,sls dehZ ds LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk ,oa vkfJr dh fu;qfDr laca/kh vH;kosnu dk fu"iknu lacaf/kr ftyk inkf/kdkjh }kjk ugha fd;k ldkA ¼3½ pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds dehZ }kjk LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk dh bPNk O;Dr dj vius ukfer vkfJr dh pkSdhnkj ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq lle; vkosnu fd;k x;kA vkosnu ds mijkar Hkh mDr dehZ }kjk viuh ok/kZD; lsok fuo`fÙk dh frfFk rd dk;Z fd;k x;k vkSj osru ÁkIr fd;k x;kA dfri; ekeyksa esa ,sls dfeZ;ksa }kjk ok/kZD; lsok fuo`fÙk ds mijkar LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk dh bfPNr frfFk ds ckn ds eghus dk fy;k gqvk osru pkyku ds ek/;e ls tek dj fn;k x;k vFkok tek djus dh bPNk O;Dr dh xbZ vkSj vius ukfer vkfJr dks fu;qfDr dj ysus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA ,sls dfri; ekeyksa esa ok/kZD; lsok fuo`fÙk ds mijkar isU'ku dh Hkh Lohd`fr ns nh xbZA ¼4½ pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds dehZ }kjk LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk dh bPNk O;Dr dj vius ukfer vkfJr dh pkSdhnkj ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq lle; vkosnu fd;k x;kA fdUrq muds }kjk ukfer vkfJr pkSdhnkj ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd ,oa vU; vgZrk /kkfjr ugha djrk gSA ,sls dfri; ekeyksa esa lsok fuo`fÙk dh frfFk ds mijkar lacaf/kr pkSdhnkj }kjk vius nwljs vkfJr] tks pkSdhnkj ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk /kkfjr djrk gS] dks fu;qDr dj fy, tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA ¼5½ pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds dehZ }kjk LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk dh bPNk O;Dr dj vius ukfer vkfJr dh pkSdhnkj ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq lle; vkosnu ugha fd;k x;kA ¼6½ pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds dehZ }kjk LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk dh bPNk O;Dr dj vius ukfer vkfJr dh pkSdhnkj ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq lle; vkosnu ugaha fd;k x;kA muds }kjk viuh ok/kZD; lsok fuo`fÙk dh frfFk ds ckn tkudkjh dk vHkko crkrs gq, vius vkfJr dks fu;qfDr djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA 3- pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds lnL;ksa ds bfPNr frfFk ls LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk ,oa muds }kjk ukfer vfJrksa dh fu;qfDr ls lacaf/kr foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk la[;k&1896 fnukad 05-03-2014 }kjk xfBr fcgkj pkSdhnkj laoxZ ¼la'kks/ku½ fu;ekoyh] 2014 ds Áko/kku Lor% Li"V gSaA pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds dehZ o"kZ 1990 ls ljdkjh lsod ?kksf"kr fd;s tk pqds gSaA fQj Hkh mudh lkekftd fLFkfr dks /;ku esa j[kdj ljdkj }kjk mUgsa LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk ysdj vius ukfer vkfJr dks pkSdhnkj ds in ij fu;qDr djkus gsrq fo'ks"k lqfo/kk Ánku dh x;h gSA bl Ádkj fu;qDr vkfJr dks iqu% LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk ysdj vius vkfJr dks ukSdjh gsrq ukfer djus dk vf/kdkj ÁkIr ugha gSA blfy, mDr fcUnqvksa ij fu.kZ; ysrs le; fu;qfDr inkf/kdkjh;ksa }kjk bl rF; dks /;ku esa j[kus dh vko';drk gS fd ljdkj }kjk nh x;h mDr fo'ks"k lqfo/kk dk vf/kd ls vf/kd ykHk pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds dfeZ;ksa dks ÁkIr gks ldsA 4- mDr vkyksd esa lE;~d :i ls fopkjksijkUr pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds lnL;ksa dh bfPNr frfFk ls LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk ,oa muds }kjk ukfer vkfJrksa dh fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa mi;qZDr dafMdk&2 esa mfYyf[kr lHkh fcUnqvksa ij fu.kZ; fy, tkus gsrq fuEufyf[kr fn'kk&funsZ'k fn;s tkrs gS%& ¼1½ mi;qZDRk dafMdk 2¼1½ ds ekeys esa vkosnu lle; fn;k x;k vkSj LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk Lohd`r gksus dh ÁR;k'kk esa bfPNr LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk dh frfFk ds mijkar dke djuk can dj fn;k x;kA lacaf/kr dehZ ds vkosnu dk ;fn lle; fu"iknu dj fn;k tkrk rks viuh bfPNr lsok fuo`fÙk dh frfFk dks og dehZ lsok fuo`fÙk le>k tkrk vkSj mlds vkfJr dh pkSdhnkj ds in ij fu;ekuqlkj fu;qfDr ij fopkj dj mlds vkosnu dk fu"iknu fd;k tkrkA ;g dkjZokbZ ftyk inkf/kdkjh ds Lrj ls visf{kr FkhA ,slk ugha gksus ls lacaf/kr dehZ dk dksbZ nks"k ugha gSA vr,o% ,sls ekeyksa esa ftyk inkf/kdkjh mudh LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk dh ?kVuksÙkj Lohd`fr nsdj muds }kjk ukfer vgZrk ÁkIr vkfJr dh fu;ekuqlkj fu;qfDr dj ldrs gSA ¼2½ mi;qZDr dafMdk 2¼2½ ds ekeys esa Hkh vkosnu lle; fn;k x;k vkSj LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk gksus vFkok bl laca/k esa dksbZ vkns'k ÁkIr ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa bfPNr LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk dh frfFk ds mijkar Hkh dke djuk tkjh j[kk x;k vFkok muls dk;Z fy;k x;kA ijarq lacaf/kr dehZ }kjk LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk Lohd`fr gksus dh ÁR;k'kk ls bfPNr frfFk ds mijkar osru ugha fy;k x;kA bl ekeys esa Hkh f'kfFkyrk ftyk inkf/kdkjh ds Lrj ls cjrh x;h gSA ;fn ftyk inkf/kdkjh }kjk lle; mlds LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk ds vkosnu dks fujLr dj fn;k x;k gksrk rks ml dehZ ds vkfJr dh fu;qfDr dk nkok ugha curkA ;fn lacaf/kr dehZ ds vkosnu dk ftyk inkf/kdkjh }kjk lle; fu"iknu dj fn;k tkrk rks viuh bfPNr lsok fuo`fÙk dh frfFk dks og dehZ lsok fuo`fÙk le>k tkrk vkSj muds vkfJr dh pkSdhnkj ds in ij fu;ekuqlkj fu;qfDr ij fopkj dj mlds vkosnu dk fu"iknu fd;k tkrkA ;g dkjZokbZ ftyk inkf/kdkjh ds Lrj ls visf{kr FkhA ,slk ughsa gksus esa lacaf/kr dehZ dk dksbZ nks"k ugha gSa vr,o% ,sls ekeyksa esa Hkh ftyk inkf/kdkjh mudh LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk dh ?kVuksÙkrj Lohd`fr nsdj muds }kjk ukfer vgZrk ÁkIr vkfJr dh fu;ekuqlkj fu;qfDr dj ldrs gSaA ¼3½ mi;qZDr dafMdk 2¼3½ ds ekeys esa vkosnu lle; fn;k x;k ijarq LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk dh bfPNr frfFk ds mijkar Hkh lacaf/kr dehZ }kjk viuh okLrfod ok/kZD; lsok fuo`fÙk dh frfFk rd u dsoy dke fd;k x;k cfYd mDr vof/k dk osru Hkh ÁkIr fd;k x;kA pwafd lacaf/kr dehZ }kjk viuh okLrfod ok/kZD; lsok fuo`fÙk dh frfFk rd osru Hkh ÁkIr fd;k x;k vr,o% ,sls ekeyksa esa mudh LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk dk vkosnu Lor% ÁHkkoghu gks tkrk gSA ,sls ekeys esa foÙk foHkkx dh jk; Hkh ÁkIr dh x;h gS vkSj foÙk foHkkx }kjk ,sls ekeysa esa LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk dh ?kVuksÙrj Lohd`fr Ánku djus ds ÁLrko esa viuh lgefr ugha nh x;h gSA vr,o% ,sls ekeys dh vLohd`r fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼4½ mi;qZDr dafMdk 2¼4½ ds ekeys esa vkosnu lle; fn;k x;k ijarq vkosnu ds le; muds }kjk ukfer vkfJr pkSdhnkj ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd ,oa vU; vgZrk /kkfjr ugha djrk gSA pwafd ljdkjh lsok esa fu;qfDr gsrq fcgkj lsok lafgrk ds fu;e&54 esa Áko/kkfur vf/kdre mez lhek esa NwV fn;s tkus ds Áko/kku ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh fu/kkZfjr vgZrk esa NwV fn;s tkus dk dksbZ Áko/kku ugha gS vkSj vkosnu fn;s tkus ,oa ,d ckj vkfJr ukfer djus ds mijkar vkfJr ifjoÙkZu dh Lohd`fr fn;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfPkR; ugha gS] vr,o% ,sls vkosnuksa dks vLohd`r fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼5½ mi;qZDr dafMdk 2¼5½ ds ekeysa esa pwafd vkosnu lle; ugha fn;k x;k gSa vr,o% fu/kkZfjr le; lhek esa ugha fn;s x;s vkosnuksa dks fu;ekuqlkj vLohd`r fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼6½ mi;qZDRk dafMdk&2¼6½ ds ekeys esa Hkh pwafd vkosnu lle; ugha fn;k x;k gS vr,o% tkudkjh ds vHkko ds uke ij dksbZ NwV fn;k tkuk fu;ekuqdwy ugha ekurs gq, fu/kkZfjr le; lhek esa ugha fn;s x;s vkosnuksa dks fu;ekuqlkj vLohd`r fd;k tk ldrk gSA 5- vuqjks/k gS fd pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds lnL;ksa dh bfPNr frfFk ls LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk ,oa muds }kjk ukfer vkfJrksa dh fu;qfDr ds ekeyksa dks mi;qZDRk dafMdk&4 esa fn;s x;s fn'kk&funsZ'k ds vkyksd esa lle; fu"ikfnr djus dh d`ik dh tk; rkfd bl laoxZ ds lnL;ksa dks ljdkj }kjk nh xbZ fo'ks"k lqfo/kk dk vf/kd ls vf/kd YkkHk ÁkIr gks ldsaA fo'oklHkktu gLrk{kj@& ¼fxjh'k eksgu Bkdqj½ ljdkj ds voj lfpoA** 11. Without going into the dispute over date of submission of application by the father of the appellant and taking into consideration the aforesaid clarificatory letter of 2018, this Court finds that the respondents have clarified the issue of those persons who continued to work and draw salary till the date of their retirement. It is not the case of the appellant that the father of the appellant had stopped working and stopped drawing salary since the date of his application, i.e. w.e.f. 18.02.2015. Clause 4 (3) of the aforesaid clarificatory letter provides that when any employee continues to work up to the date of retirement and also draws his salary for the said period, then his application would become infructuous in terms of the categorical note of the Finance Department regarding grant of such facility of voluntary retirement to such employee. On this account, reliance placed by the respondents on the decision rendered in L.P.A. No. 785 of 2018 is correct. 12. Furthermore, it appears that the aforesaid 2014, Rules is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India because post of Chaukidar in the State of Bihar is a public post. If any single public post is required to be filled up in a State or its organization, such selection and appointment must be in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Even after 75 years of independence, the States are violating the constitutional mandate by not following Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution insofar as filling up of public post in the State/organization is concerned. 13. The Apex Court in the case of Renu and Others vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and Another, (2014) 14 SCC 50 held in paragraphs 6 to 14 and 16 as under: “6. Article 14 of the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity. It forms the cornerstone of our Constitution. 7. In I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1 : AIR 2007 SC 861 , the doctrine of basic features has been explained by this Court as under: (SCC p. 108, Para 141) “141. Article 14 of the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity. It forms the cornerstone of our Constitution. 7. In I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1 : AIR 2007 SC 861 , the doctrine of basic features has been explained by this Court as under: (SCC p. 108, Para 141) “141. The doctrine of basic structure contemplates that there are certain parts or aspects of the Constitution including Article 15, Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19 which constitute the core values which if allowed to be abrogated would change completely the nature of the Constitution. Exclusion of fundamental rights would result in nullification of the basic structure doctrine, the object of which is to protect basic features of the Constitution as indicated by the synoptic view of the rights in Part-III.” 8. As Article 14 is an integral part of our system, each and every State action is to be tested on the touchstone of equality. Any appointment made in violation of mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is not only irregular but also illegal and cannot be sustained in view of the judgments rendered by this Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union vs. Delhi Administration, (1992) 4 SCC 99 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 805 : (1992) 21 ATC 386, State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 825 : (1992) 21 ATC 403, Prabhat Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. (1996) 10 SCC 62 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1331, J.A.S. Inter College vs. State of U.P. (1996) 10 SCC 71 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1339, M.P. Housing Board vs. Manoj Shrivastava, (2006) 2 SCC 702 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 422, M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. vs. S.C. Pandey, (2006) 2 SCC 716 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 434 and State of M.P. vs. Sandhya Tomar, (2013) 11 SCC 357 . 9. In Excise Supt. vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, (1996) 6 SCC 216 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1420, a larger Bench of this Court reconsidered its earlier judgment in Union of India vs. N. Hargopal, (1987) 3 SCC 308 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 227 : (1987) 4 ATC 51 : AIR 1987 SC 1227 , wherein it had been held that insistence on recruitment through employment exchanges advances rather than restricts the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, due to the possibility of non-sponsoring of names by the employment exchange, this Court held that any appointment even on temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting application is in violation of the said provisions of the Constitution and even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from employment exchange, in addition thereto, it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from open market as merely calling the names from the employment exchange does not meet the requirement of the said articles of the Constitution. The Court further observed: (K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao Case (1996) 6 SCC 216 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1420, SCC p. 218 Para 6) “6.........In addition, the appropriate department......should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice......and employment news bulletins and then consider the cases of all candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be sub-served. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. In Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 10 SCC 276 this Court upheld the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein 1600 appointments made in the Police Department without advertisement stood quashed though the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 did not provide for such a course. The High Court reached the conclusion that process of selection stood vitiated because there was no advertisement and due publicity for inviting applications from the eligible candidates at large. 11. The High Court reached the conclusion that process of selection stood vitiated because there was no advertisement and due publicity for inviting applications from the eligible candidates at large. 11. In UPSC vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela, (2006) 2 SCC 482 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 339 : AIR 2006 SC 1165 this Court held : (SCC p. 490, Para 12) “12.........The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial, through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made.......Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution.” 12. The principles to be adopted in the matter of public appointments have been formulated by this Court in M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. Nanuram Yadav, (2007) 8 SCC 264 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 883 as under: (SCC pp. 274-275, Para 24) “(1) The appointments made without following the appropriate procedure under the rules/government circulars and without advertisement or inviting applications from the open market would amount to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (2) Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment. (3) An appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularisation. (4) Those who come by back door should go through that door. (5) No regularisation is permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules. (6) The court should not exercise its jurisdiction on misplaced sympathy. (4) Those who come by back door should go through that door. (5) No regularisation is permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules. (6) The court should not exercise its jurisdiction on misplaced sympathy. (7) If the mischief played is so widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notice to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. (8) When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place and the entire selection has to be set aside.” 13. A similar view has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753 : AIR 2006 SC 1806 , observing that any appointment made in violation of the statutory rules as also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would be a nullity. “Adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is a must in the process of public employment.” The Court further rejected the prayer that ad hoc appointees working for long be considered for regularisation as such a course only encourages the State to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on some at the cost of many waiting to compete. 14. In State of Orissa vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 83 this Court dealt with the constitutional principle of providing equality of opportunity to all which mandatorily requires that vacancy must be notified in advance meaning thereby that information of the recruitment must be disseminated in a reasonable manner in public domain ensuring maximum participation of all eligible candidates, thereby the right of equal opportunity is effectuated. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 452, Para 36) “36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 452, Para 36) “36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the employment exchange or putting a note on the notice-board, etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance with the said constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit.” 16. Another important requirement of public appointment is that of transparency. Therefore, the advertisement must specify the number of posts available for selection and recruitment. The qualifications and other eligibility criteria for such posts should be explicitly provided and the schedule of recruitment process should be published with certainty and clarity. The advertisement should also specify the rules under which the selection is to be made and in absence of the rules, the procedure under which the selection is likely to be undertaken. This is necessary to prevent arbitrariness and to avoid change of criteria of selection after the selection process is commenced, thereby unjustly benefiting someone at the cost of others.” 14. The Apex Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 209 , held in Para 15 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. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. The Apex Court in the case of V. Sivamurthy vs. State of A.P. (2008) 13 SCC 730 , held in paragraph 9 as under: “9. Article 16 of the Constitution bars discrimination in employment on the ground only of descent. If the service rules or any scheme of the Government provides that whenever a government servant retires from service, one of his dependants should be given employment in his place, or provides that the children of government servants will have preference in employment, that would squarely fly in the face of prohibition on the ground of descent. Employment should not be hereditary or by succession. But where the policy provides for compassionate appointment in the case of an employee who dies in harness or an employee who is medically invalidated, such a provision is based on a classification which is not only on the ground of descent. The classification is based on another condition in addition to descent: that is death of the employee in harness, or medical invalidation of the employee while in service.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika vs. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union, (2022) 10 SCC 171 has held that compassionate appointment cannot be extended to legal heirs of retiring/superannuating employees since that would be contrary to object of granting compassionate appointment, and hence would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It would be pertinent to quote paragraph 16 of the said judgment: “16. It would be pertinent to quote paragraph 16 of the said judgment: “16. Even otherwise, such an appointment to the heirs of the employees on their retirement and/or superannuation shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, compassionate appointment shall always be treated as an exception to the normal method of recruitment. The appointment on compassionate grounds is provided upon the death of an employee in harness without any kind of security whatsoever. The appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic and shall be subject to the strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family. No one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement. If such an appointment is permitted, in that case, outsiders shall never get an appointment and only the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement shall get an appointment and those who are the outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be more meritorious and/or well educated and/or more qualified. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the respondent that the appointment is not on compassionate grounds but the same be called as varas hakka cannot be accepted. Even if the same be called as varas hakka the same is not supported by any scheme and even the same also can be said to be violative of Article 14 as well as Article 15 of the Constitution of India.” (Emphasis supplied) 17. Even if the same be called as varas hakka the same is not supported by any scheme and even the same also can be said to be violative of Article 14 as well as Article 15 of the Constitution of India.” (Emphasis supplied) 17. Hence, this Court is of the view that the proviso to Rule 5 (7) of 2014, Rules which reads as under: ^^ijarqd& ¼d½ pkSdhnkj loaxZ ds deZpkjh viuh ok/kZD; lsokfuo`fÙk dh frfFk ls de ls de ,d ekg iwoZ ds ÁHkko ls LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk ,oa pkSdhnkj in ij vius }kjk ukfer fdlh vkfJr dks fu;ksftr djus ds fy, vkosnu dj ldsxkA ¼[k½ lkekU; Á'kklu foHkkx }kjk le;≤ ij vo/kkfjr U;wure ,oa vf/kdre mez&lhek laca/kh Áko/kku mu ij ykxw jgsxkA ¼x½ LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk ds i'pkr~ fu;qDr O;fDr ds vkfJr dks bl ijUrqd dk YkkHk vuqekU; ugha gksxkA ¼?k½ LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk dk bPNqd pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds O;fDr dks lsokfuo`fÙk dh viuh bfPNr frfFk ls de ls de ,d ekg iwoZ vius inLFkkiu ftyk ds ftyk inkf/kdkjh dk viuk vkosnu nsuk gksxkA** Is contrary to the express provisions of the Constitution being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and, accordingly, the aforementioned provision is set aside. Hence it could not further the cause of the appellant and the appellant could not claim any benefit under Rule 5 (7) of 2014, Rules. 18. Accordingly, this Court finds and holds that the respondents cannot be directed at this stage to reconsider the application of the father of the appellant for grant of such benefit of employment of his ward in accordance with the provisions of 2014 Rules. 19. In the light of discussion made hereinabove and under the facts and circumstances of the case, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. 20. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the concerned authority through the Registrar General for taking further steps in identical issue, if any.