as well as materials on record, this Court is of the observation that the fact that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 29.05.2016 is not disputed by the parties. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application within the stipulated period of time. However, the case of the petitioner was initially rejected vide order under Annexure-2 on the ground that there were no vacancies available under the Opposite Party No.2. In the aforesaid context this Court is required to examine the provisions of the rules. The rules provide that in the event vacancies are not available, the authorities are duty bound to forward the application of the petitioner/applicant to the Heads of Department to find out vacancies in order to accommodate the petitioner. However, such procedure has not been followed in case of the petitioner. Similarly, the letter under Annexure-3 requiring the petitioner to make a fresh application under the new rule of the year 2020 is equally illegal, especially since the Rule 6(9), which provides for all pending applications to be considered under the new rules, has been struck down by this Court in Biswajit Swain vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 . Further, the law with regard to appointment on compassionate ground prior to the new rule came into force has been taken note of and finally adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1, State of West Bengal-v.-Debabrata Tiwri reported in (2023 (3) SCALE-557,Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 & batch decided on 27.06.2023 and State of Odisha and others vs. Bindu Sagar Samantaray in W.A.No.810 of 2021. In view of the above analysis the order under Annexure-2 and Annexure-3, according to this Court, are unsustainable in law.
