Saiyed Haider Abbas Raza, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner according to his qualifications under the Rules known as 'Dying in Harness Rules' in any branch of the State Bank of India preferably in Gonda Branch, The main thrust of the argument of the petitioner is that his father died in harness but the opposite parties inspite of the Government Orders as well as the scheme for appointment of dependent of deceased employee on compassionate ground by the State Bank of India, he has not been appointed. The attention of this court has been drawn towards the order dated 7.9.1990 passed by the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Gorakhpur in which it was mentioned that the application of the petitioner was rejected mainly on the ground that the said application was not preferred within one year from the date of the death of his father. It seems that the said order was passed on the basis of the scheme for appointment of dependent of deceased employee on compassionate ground, the relevant para of which is reproduced as under: - - Request for appointment under the scheme should be received by the Bank within one year from the date of death of employee. In case the dependent is a minor or does not possess suitable minimum qualification, his/her case can be considered within four years of the death of the employee, to enable him/her to so qualify in terms of age and/or qualification, provided that the dependent has made a request to the Bank within a year of the death of the employee. The said rule certainly puts an embargo upon the right of the Bank authorities not to consider the case of appointment of a person on the basis of Dying in Harness Rules if the application has not been preferred within a year from the death of the employee. The petitioner when he filed the petition was about 18 years. His father expired in the year 1980. Hence at that time he was a minor. The petitioner could not have made any application for appointment as he suffered from a disqualification. Even if he would have approached the authorities concerned his application would have been rejected on the ground of age. As soon as he attained the majority he applied for his appointment on the basis of the aforesaid Rules. The reason indicated by the opposite party No. 5 in the order dated 7 -9 -1990 is manifestly illegal. The opposite parties did not consider that the petitioner suffered from a disqualification and as soon as he attained the majority and his disqualification was removed he applied for appointment. The opposite party have ignored this aspect of the matter.
(2.) THE order -sheet indicates that the opposite parties -have been served but they have not filed any counter -affidavit. The matter involved is a trivial one and can be decided even without a counter -affidavit. Hence this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the opposite parties will consider and pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner for his appointment on the basis of Dying in Harness Rules, and the observation made above, ignoring the bar pertaining to preferring the application within one year. The opposite parties will pass orders within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order. A copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of requisite charges within a week.;