R. A. MEHTA, S. M. SONI, J. ( 1 ) IN all these petitions against the S. T. Corporation the petitioners seek relief for appointment to Class III or Class IV service on compassionate ground. It is stated that in each of these cases the petitioner is the dependent of the employee who was in service of the S. T. Corporation and who died while in service. It is on this basis that the appointment is claimed by the dependent of the deceased employee. The relevant dates are as follows : spl. C. A. No. Date of death of Date of birth/ Date of appln. employee majority of dependent - 7441 8. 11 26. 6 1. 1 2182 4. 1 30. 6 3. 7 2183 16. 5 8. 6 16. 5 2184 26. 3 8. 7 29. 8 9888 11. 2 1. 6 22. 8 ( 2 ) IT is clear that in each of these cases the applications seeking compassionate appointment have been made after five years of the death of the employee (except in Spl. C. A. No 2184/92) and the applications have been made beyond one year of the date of attaining majority. The relevant provisions contained in para 30 of the Settlement provide that if an employee dies while in service one dependent who attains majority within 10 years of the date of the death of the employee and applies within one year of the date of attaining majority would be considered for appointment according to his educational qualifications in class III or IV service subject to availability of posts. ( 3 ) AS seen from the above tabular statement of facts and dates in the first three cases the applications are made beyond 10 years of the date of the death of the employee and also beyond one year of the attaining of majority by the dependent-applicant. Therefore their cases are clearly beyond the time within which such benefit could have been given. In Spl. C. A. No. 9888/92 also though the application is made after 5 1/2 years of the date of the death of the employee it is made beyond one year of the date of attaining majority. The petitioner attained majority on 1. 6 and the application was made after 1. 6. 90 i. e. on 22. 8. 90. In Spl. C. A. No. 9888/92 also though the application is made after 5 1/2 years of the date of the death of the employee it is made beyond one year of the date of attaining majority. The petitioner attained majority on 1. 6 and the application was made after 1. 6. 90 i. e. on 22. 8. 90. ( 4 ) THE consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is to relieve the dependent family of the miseries and hardships due to the death of the earning member of the family. In such cases a family is in urgent need of help and compassion when there is no other earning member in the family but after the lapse of years the family would stand in similar position with large number of other families in the country. The Corporation has arrived at a settlement with the employees Union and laid down a policy generously extending the benefit to dependents who attain the majority within 10 years provided that the application is made within one year of the date of attaining majority. Having laid down this policy in consultation and with consent of the employees Union the policy is required to be followed uniformly and benefit can be given to the persons who are covered by the policy. When the Corporation follows the policy and implements the same and does not extend the benefit to the dependents who are not covered it cannot be said that the Corporation is acting arbitrarily or unreasonably. If the Corporation was to extend the benefits beyond the periods laid down in the settlement and the policy the Corporation might be accused of giving backdoor appointment and undue favouritism at the cost of the interest of the Corporation and public interest. A public Corporation is entitled to recruit the best available candidates from the market after competition and the better candidates in the market also have a better claim for such appointment than the dependents who claim to have the appointment merely on the ground of compassion. The dependents according to their eligibility can compet and get the entry in the public Corporation. The respondent-Corporation has tried to balance the interest of the families of the deceased employees as against the general interest of the Corporation and public interest of other eligible candidates. The dependents according to their eligibility can compet and get the entry in the public Corporation. The respondent-Corporation has tried to balance the interest of the families of the deceased employees as against the general interest of the Corporation and public interest of other eligible candidates. ( 5 ) SINCE the cases of the petitioners are not covered by the policy of the Corporation Spl. C. A. Nos. 7441/91 2182 2183 and 9888/92 are liable to be rejected and rule in those petitions are discharged. No order as to costs. ( 6 ) SPL. Civil Application no. 2184/92 stands on a different footing. In that case the petitioner-dependent had attained majority on 8. 7 and within less than two months i. e. on 29. 8 he had applied for compassionate appointment In the affidavit-in-reply it is stated that the petitioners application was of 29. 8 However the petitioner has produced the original letter of the Corporation dated 13. 9. 91 which is in reply to the petitioners application dated 29. 8. 89. This letter is taken on record and in view of this letter the petitioners application is within the time prescribed and hence that application was entitled to be considered on merits. The Corporation is therefore directed to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on merits and if the petitioner satisfies the relevant criteria then the Corporation will give him appointment in accordance with its Rules and Regulations. The petitioners case was not considered on merits only on the ground that the application was made beyond time. Spl. Civil Application no. 2184/92 is accordingly allowed and rule is made absolute by directing the respondent-Corporation to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on merits. The Corporation shall consider that application within three months from today and take a final decision. There will be no order as to costs. Four Petitions Rejected and One Allowed. .