S.N.PATHAK,J. - (1.) The petitioner is represented by learned counsel, Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha and the State is represented by Mr. Sunil Singh, J.C. to SC Mines.
(2.) In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter No. 177 (ii) dated 02.02.2013 issued by the District Establishment Deputy Collector, Ranchi (respondent No. 4), whereby it has been informed to the respondent No. 2 that the representation submitted by the mother of the petitioner for compassionate appointment of this petitioner has been rejected by the District Establishment Committee, Ranchi on the ground that the representation is barred by limitation, in spite of the fact that the mother of the petitioner had earlier submitted representation before the respondents-authority for appointment of her son namely, Jaynandan Prasad, on compassionate ground but the same was rejected on the ground that Jaynandan Prasad did not ful fill the requisite qualification for appointment on compassionate ground and thereafter, the mother of the petitioner filed representation for appointment of this petitioner on compassionate ground.
(3.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the father of the petitioner namely, Lalan Mistry, was employed as Peon in the office of respondent No. 2. He died in harness on 21.10.2004 while he was posted as Peon. Thereafter, mother of the petitioner, namely, Devpato Devi filed representation before the respondents-authority for appointment of her son namely, Jaynandan Prasad on compassionate ground but the District Establishment Compassionate Committee rejected her representation vide letter No. 1337(ii) dated 30.08.2012 on the ground that the said Jaynandan Prasad does not fulfil the required qualification. When the said representation was rejected by the respondents-authority, she again filed representation before the respondents-authority requesting therein to appoint her daughter (petitioner herein) on compassionate ground. This time the representation of the mother of the petitioner was illegally and arbitrarily rejected on the ground that the same is time barred.;