(1.) ON an application for interim relief, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to hear the matter finally. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be allowed to delete the opposite party No.4. Let him do so. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 30.3.2005, by means of which the representation which he has preferred for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules has been rejected. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while rejecting the representation, the appointing authority has not considered the requisite conditions as provided under Rule 7 of the Rules insofar as he has only called for a report from the Superintendent of Police and on the basis of the report, he has rejected the representation, whereas Rule 7 specifically provides that if there are two applicants, the appointing authority has to consider the ingredients required therein. Rule 7 which is relevant for the purposes of adjudicating the present controversy reads as under:- "7. Procedure when more than one member of the family seeks employment - If more than one member of the family of the deceased Government servant seeks employment under these rules, the Head Office shall decide about the suitability of the person for giving employment. The decision will be taken keeping in view also the overall interest of the welfare of the entire family particularly the widow and the minor members thereof." Since the ingredients of Rule 7 have not been considered, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 30.3.2005 is hereby quashed. The concerned authority [respondents no.2] is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under Rule 7 of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The authority concerned shall pass the appropriate orders within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.