Order : Rajesh Shankar, J. I.A. No.2221 of 2025: 1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the application duly supported by the affidavit of the applicant-appellant, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay of 192 days that has crept up in filing of the appeal. 2. Ordered accordingly. 3. I.A. No.2221 of 2025 is disposed of. L.P.A. No.176 of 2025: 4. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19 th June, 2024 passed in W.P.(S) No.2744 of 2021, whereby the said writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant for appointment on compassionate ground has been dismissed. 5. The factual background of the case as set out in the writ petition is that the mother of the appellant, namely, Late Asho Kamin was working on the post of Piece Rated Worker at Parej East Open Cast Project, Central Coalfields Ltd., Hazaribag. She died in harness on 7 th February, 2008 leaving behind the present appellant and his elder brother, namely, Raju Oraon, who is already employed. 6. Thereafter, the appellant submitted his application along with all requisite documents for compassionate appointment on 22 nd April, 2008 before the respondent-authority. However, the respondents rejected the said application vide letter dated 5 th March, 2009 on the ground that his age had crossed 35 years which was the maximum age for getting compassionate appointment. 7. Aggrieved with such rejection, the appellant filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2389 of 2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 22 nd February,2019 remanding the matter to the concerned authority to take informed reasoned decision after giving due opportunity to him to place his case. 8. The appellant thereafter submitted an application for consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment, however, the same was again rejected by the Senior Manager (Personnel), CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi (respondent no.4) vide order as contained in letter dated 31 st December, 2019 stating that the date of birth of the appellant mentioned in the birth certificate issued by the concerned Panchayat Sewak was 21 st April, 1990, whereas his mother had declared his age in her service records as 19 years on 1 st April, 1987 and, hence, there was major difference in his age recorded in the said documents. The appellant again filed a writ petition being W.P(S) No.2744 of 2021 which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 19 th June, 2024. Hence, the present letters patent appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that pursuant to the order dated 22 nd February, 2019 passed in W.P.(S) No.2389 of 2010, the appellant filed a representation before the concerned authority on 27 th March, 2019 along with a copy his birth certificate issued by the Panchayat Sewak, Gram Panchayat- Chakri Ichakdih, Mandu Block, Ramgarh and school transfer certificate issued by the Principal, Rajkiya Madhya Vidyalaya, Kedla, Hazaribagh, wherein his date of birth was recorded as 21 st April, 1990. 10. It is further submitted that the genuineness of appellant’s birth certificate had been verified by the Assistant Manager (Personnel), Parej East Open Cast Project, CCL, Hazaribagh by sending a letter dated 19 th July, 2019 to Block Development Officer, Mandu, Ramgarh, who had confirmed the authenticity of the same. 11. It is also contended that there was a wrong entry in the service records of the mother of the appellant with respect to his age. Moreover, in the matter of determining the age of a compassionate appointee, the CCL does not rely upon entry made in the service record of the deceased employee, rather it relies on the matriculation certificate and in case, no matriculation certificate is produced, the age is determined by the Medical Board. 12. It is argued that since the appellant had submitted his date of birth certificate as well as school transfer certificate, the respondent-authorities should have considered his date of birth recorded as in those certificates for providing him compassionate appointment. 13. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the service records of mother of the appellant prepared in the year 1987, the age of the appellant was written as 19 years (as on 1 st April, 1987) which was duly authenticated by the mother of the appellant by putting her signature over the same and at the time of filing of the application for compassionate appointment, his age was more than 35 years. As such, his application was rejected. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment on the said ground which needs no interference by this court. 14. As such, his application was rejected. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment on the said ground which needs no interference by this court. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 15. The appellant has claimed appointment on compassionate ground as his mother died in harness on 07 th February, 2008 who was working as Piece Rated Worker at Parej, East Cast Project, CCL, Hazaribag. 16. The respondent no.4 rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that as per entry made in the service records of his mother, his age had crossed 35 years which was the maximum age for getting compassionate appointment. 17. We have perused the service excerpts as well as L.T.C. “Form-A” of the mother of the appellant which were prepared in the year 1987 and have been annexed as Annexure-1 series to the supplementary affidavit dated 04 th March, 2025 filed by the appellant. In the said documents, the age of the appellant is written as 19 years. It is thus, evident that the appellant was born in the year 1968 and at the time of making the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground, he had crossed the age of 35 years. The particulars filled in those documents were duly authenticated by the mother of the appellant putting her signature/thumb impression over the same and she had also taken the benefit of LTC on the basis of the said particulars. She had neither made any objection to the said entry nor had claimed for correction of the age of the appellant during her life time. 18. The appellant had submitted his Aadhaar Card before the respondent authorities wherein his year of birth was recorded as 1990, however, the same was not accepted by them on the ground that it was issued after three years of her mother’s death. 19. The birth certificate of the appellant issued by the concerned Panchayat Sewak was also not accepted by the respondent authorities on the ground that his date of birth was recorded as 21 st April, 1990 in the same, whereas in the service record filled by his mother on 3 rd July, 1987, his age was recorded as 19 years (as on 1 st April, 1987). Thus, according to the respondent- authorities there was serious doubt with regard to the authenticity of the birth certificate issued by the Panchayat Sewak, Gram Panchayat-Chakri Ichakdih, Mandu Block, Ramgarh. 20. Though the appellant has claimed before this Court that the entry with respect to his age in the service records of his mother is a subsequent entry, yet said claim of the appellant cannot be accepted without any supporting evidence on record. Moreover, no overwriting has been found in the said entry and the same appears to have been made in one go. Thus, there is no ground to doubt the said entry that too after the death of the mother of the appellant. Even if it is assumed that the entry in the service records of the mother of the appellant regarding his age was wrong, his mother herself was responsible for the same as she was the best person to know about the age of her children and the same cannot be corrected after her death. 21. The appellant has not disputed the contention of the respondents that the maximum age for getting appointment on compassionate ground is 35 years. It is a settled legal proposition that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. A claim for compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions governing the subject, taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. 22. We are of the considered view that fixing eligibility for appointment on a particular post falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature/executive which cannot be the subject-matter of judicial review. 23. The learned counsel for the respondents has put reliance on the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Ganesh Kumar Vs. M/s Central Coalfields Limited & Others (L.P.A No. 311 of 2021), holding inter alia that since it was the self-disclosure of father of the writ-petitioner about the age of the writ-petitioner according to which he had crossed the maximum age of 35 years on the date of application filed for getting compassionate appointment, he was not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. We are also in agreement with the said view taken by the co-ordinate Bench. 24. We are also in agreement with the said view taken by the co-ordinate Bench. 24. For the reasons as discussed hereinabove, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 19 th June, 2024 passed in W.P.(S) No.2744 of 2021. 25. The present appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.