JUDGMENT : Biren Vaishnav, J. 1. This appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises out of an oral order dated 12.07.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11313 of 2014. 2. The petitioner, who is the appellant before us, challenged two orders dated 08.11.2007 and 28.06.2011 passed by the first respondent in the petition by which the request of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in the cadre of Class-IV was turned down on the ground that on the date of the application, the petitioner was not holding the qualification of New SSC Pass. 3. Facts relevant for the purposes of this appeal need not be reiterated as they have been set out by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs no. 3 to 3.3 which read as under : “3. The policy resolution providing for the Scheme of compassionate appointment under which the petitioner claimed benefits are dated 10.03.2000, and dated 07.09.2002. They prescribe the criteria and parameters for appointment of the kiths and kins of the deceased employee eligible to be appointed on compassionate basis. 3.1 As far as the facts related to the present petitioner are concerned, his father Parbatbhai Jethsurbhai Chavda worked as Forest Guard since 1976 untill he died while in service on 04.05.2002. It appears that the petitioner applied on 16.07.2002 for getting appointment on compassionate ground on the plea that there was no earning member in the family after the death of his father, who was the sole bread earner. It is the case of the petitioner, not controverted, that his application was within the prescribed time limit. The petitioner was at that time aged 22 years and was holding qualification of 7th standard pass. It is averred that he had also completed the course relating to computer education. 3.2 The averments in the petition further travels to state that the second respondent sent a proposal to the first respondent for compassionate appointment of the petitioner and the respondent No.1 sought for certain details from the first respondent. They were supplied. It appears that thereafter the correspondence continued to ensue between the parties. The process culminated into the impugned decision. 3.3 The ground on which the petitioner was denied compassionate appointment was that on the date of application, he was not holding the S.S.C. pass qualification. They were supplied. It appears that thereafter the correspondence continued to ensue between the parties. The process culminated into the impugned decision. 3.3 The ground on which the petitioner was denied compassionate appointment was that on the date of application, he was not holding the S.S.C. pass qualification. In this regard, it was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that policy in vogue on the date when he applied for compassionate appointment, did not provide for qualification of S.S.C. He invited attention of the relevant clauses from the policy circular dated 10.03.2000. It was pointed out that for the purpose of appointment on compassionate basis under class-IV category the educational qualification prescribed was passing of standard 4 to 9, and that the petitioner had cleared 7 th standard. It was therefore submitted that the respondents erred to propose to apply the policy, on the date when they communicated the decision to the petitioner as aforesaid.” 4. Mr. Manish Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellant would make the same submissions as were pressed into service before the learned Single Judge. He would submit that the appellant’s father died on 04.05.2002. The appellant applied on 16.07.2002. The appellant possessed the qualification of 7th standard pass. The policy of providing appointment on compassionate grounds in vogue was the policy of 10.03.2000 which provided that an eligible candidate should be holding a qualification of standard 4 to standard 9 pass. The policy of 07.09.2002 made no changes. Therefore, on the date when the application was made i.e. on 06.07.2002, the policy of 10.03.2000 applied and therefore the appellant was qualified for appointment on compassionate grounds. 4.1 It is the submission of Mr. Patel that the rejection of the application on 08.11.2007 as well as on 28.06.2011 on account of a policy of 16.03.2005 which required an applicant to have passed 10th standard was bad as that had come into effect after the date of application and therefore could not have been considered. He would therefore submit that the learned Single Judge ought to have quashed the communications dated 08.11.2007 as well as 28.06.2011 and directed the respondents to appoint the appellant on compassionate grounds. Mr. He would therefore submit that the learned Single Judge ought to have quashed the communications dated 08.11.2007 as well as 28.06.2011 and directed the respondents to appoint the appellant on compassionate grounds. Mr. Patel submitted that the learned Single Judge could not have directed the respondents to give lumpsum compensation on the ground of a new policy of 05.07.2011 having come into force of providing compensation as that policy also was not applicable being in vogue at the time of application. 4.2 Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant would press into service the following decisions to submit that the policy that has to be considered is the one which is prevailing on the date of application. (a) SCA No. 2438 of 2013 dated 29.12.2016 (b) LPA No. 1312 of 2017 dated 21.03.2018 (c) LPA No. 1843 of 2017 dated 21.03.2018 (d) LPA No. 394 of 2018 dated 26.03.2018 (e) Civil Appeal No. 6903 of 2001 dated 18.11.2021 4.2.1 Mr. Patel would submit that all the above decisions were in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Canara Bank and Another vs. Mahesh Kumar reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 which held that claim for compassionate appointment under a particular scheme cannot be decided based on subsequent scheme that came into force after the claim. The impugned orders therefore asserting that since in light of policy dated 16.03.2005, as the appellant had not passed standard 10 was illegal as it was based on a subsequent policy which came into force after the appellant applied on 16.07.2002. 5. Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP would submit that the decision in the case of Mahesh Kumar (supra) received consideration before the three judge bench of the Apex Court in the case of N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 where it was held that norms prevailing on date of consideration of the application should be the basis. She would therefore submit that the rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment was just and proper. 6. In rejoinder, Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant would press into service a decision of the Apex Court in the case of The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) & Ors. She would therefore submit that the rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment was just and proper. 6. In rejoinder, Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant would press into service a decision of the Apex Court in the case of The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) & Ors. vs. Bheemesh Alias Bhemappa reported in AIR 2022 SC 402 and submit that in the said decision a view was taken that policy in vogue at the time of making application is to be considered. 7. Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP, however would rely on a recent decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Jeshingbhai Paljibhai Rathod vs. State of Gujarat through Secretary in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1156 of 2022 decided on 20.10.2023 which considered all the decisions including Bheemesh (supra) and held that date of consideration in the facts of this case was relevant and therefore the orders rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment were just and proper. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it would be apposite to revisit the relevant dates: Date of death 04.05.2002 Date of application 16.07.2002 Qualification Standard 7 pass Policy in vogue on date of application 10.03.2000 and 07.09.2002 which required a qualification of std. 4 to std. 9 pass Date of consideration 08.11.2007 and 28.06.2011 Policy in vogue on date of consideration 16.03.2005 policy which required a candidate to have passed 10th standard. 8.1 The impugned orders rejecting the application for appointment on compassionate ground were therefore based on a policy applicable on the date of consideration of the application. 9. The question, therefore, before us in appeal is whether the impugned communications before the learned Single Judge were just and proper. We have to examine these communications as the learned Single Judge has while dealing with the orders not positively opined the correctness of the impugned orders even after recording the submissions and even when contested. The same would be evident on reading paragraphs no. 4 to 4.1 and paragraph no. 5 of the oral order of the learned Single Judge which read as under: “4. The same would be evident on reading paragraphs no. 4 to 4.1 and paragraph no. 5 of the oral order of the learned Single Judge which read as under: “4. Learned advocate for the petitioner could successfully relied on order dated 15.10.2008 of this court passed in Special Civil Application No. 12620 of 2008 and order also order dated 15.01.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12472 of 2008, in which this court has taken a view that it is the policy prevalent on the date of the application of the person concerned for compassionate appointment should be applied to consider his eligibility to be appointed. Yet another decision of Apex Court in Canara Bank vs. M. Mahesh Kumar [ (2015) 7 SCC 412 ] was relied on for its paragraph Nos. 13 and 17 to press the same proposition. 4.1 Petition is contested by the other side by filling affidavit-in-reply, in which it was reiterated that the petitioner had not acquired the S.S.C. qualification, therefore was not entitled. Furthermore, it was stated that the policy of giving compassionate appointment, has been discontinued and instead a new policy of giving lump-sum compensation is substituted. In that regard General Administration Department of the State Government has issued Resolution dated 05.07.2011. It is stated that benefits of paying lump-sum amount would be available to the applicant, provided only if the earlier application was not rejected. Learned Assistant Government Pleader heavily relied on affidavit-in-reply. 5. From the conspectus of facts highlighted above, it emerges firstly that on the date when the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, he was seventh standard pass and therefore had been fulfilling the required educational qualification to be appointed in class-IV category. It was the qualification of 4th to 9th standard pass, which was prevalent at that point of time. The decision cited by learned advocate for the petitioner suggest the proposition of law that the qualification needed on the date of applying would matter and the application of the petitioner would be required to be treated accordingly. The impugned decisions were taken and communicated on 08.11.2007 and again on 28.06.2011, which was on the footing that the petitioner had not passed the S.S.C. examination therefore was not liable to be accorded compassionate appointment.” 9.1 While doing so the learned Single Judge has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mahesh kumar (supra). The impugned decisions were taken and communicated on 08.11.2007 and again on 28.06.2011, which was on the footing that the petitioner had not passed the S.S.C. examination therefore was not liable to be accorded compassionate appointment.” 9.1 While doing so the learned Single Judge has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mahesh kumar (supra). The law on the question whether an application for appointment on compassionate grounds is required to be decided in accordance with the policy in vogue on the set of rules at the time of making application or in accordance with the policy prevalent at the time when the application is actually considered was in consideration before a three judge bench of the Apex Court in the case of N.C. Santosh (supra) where the Apex Court considered the earlier decisions on this issue and held as under: “20. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee. 21. In view of the foregoing opinion, we endorse the Tribunal’s view as affirmed by the High Court of Karnataka to the effect that the appellants were ineligible for compassionate appointment when their applications were considered and the unamended provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules will not apply to them. Since no infirmity is found in the impugned judgments, the appeals are found devoid of merit and the same are dismissed.” 9.2 In other words, the Apex Court held that it would be the date of consideration of the application and not the date of making of the application which would be relevant to decide as to which policy would apply to the case for grant of compassionate appointment. Therefore in light of the decision in the case of N.C. Santosh (supra) the orders impugned in the petition dated 08.11.2007 and 28.06.2011 rejecting the request for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner – appellant was not standard 10 pass which was a stipulation as per the policy of 16.03.2005 which was the relevant policy on the date of consideration of the application on 08.11.2007 and 28.06.2011 cannot be faulted. 9.3 In view of the above, we hold that the orders impugned in the petition dated 08.11.2007 and 28.06.2011 are just and proper and the application for appointment on compassionate grounds was rightly rejected by the respondents. 10. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.