JUDGMENT S. N. Phukan, C. J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Shri Ramesh Kumar praying for an appropriate writ to the respondents to consider his case for appointment in the post of lower division clerk on compassionate grounds and to offer him the said post immediately. 2. It is not disputed that the father of the present petitioner was serving as constable in the erstwhile 5th Himachal S. S B. Battalion and while he was serving in the said capacity he died due to an accident caused by heavy snow fall while he was on duty on 19th February, 1987 Late constable Gulab Singh left behind his widow Smt. Mangla Devi, his two sons, namely, Ramesh Kumar, the present petitioner and Parveen and a daughter Kumari Lata According to the petitioner his mother was illiterate and, therefore, she could not approach the authorities for appointment to a post on compassionate grounds, The petitioner and other children were minors at the time of death of their father late constable Gulab Singh and, therefore, they also could not apply for appointment to a post on compassionate grounds. The petitioner passed his matriculation examination in first division in March 1990 and at that time he was 17 years old He passed his plus 2 examination in the year 1992 and after completing 18 years of age, he applied to the respondents for appointment to the post of lower division clerk on compassionate grounds His application for the said post was received, as it appears from the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, on 15th July, 1992 and thereafter he was interviewed but not selected. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. In the reply affidavit the respondents have taken a plea that the writ petitioner has no right to claim appointment on compassionate grounds inasmuch as his father died while in service about five years back and as per office memorandum dated 30th June, 1987, Annexure R-1, his case is not covered. 4. The fact that the case of the petitioner was considered on compassionate grounds for appointment as lower division clerk is not disputed In fact, there were seven candidates for appointment on compassionate grounds but the Board recommended only two candidates who could qualify in English and typing test and whose economic condition was also poor. 4. The fact that the case of the petitioner was considered on compassionate grounds for appointment as lower division clerk is not disputed In fact, there were seven candidates for appointment on compassionate grounds but the Board recommended only two candidates who could qualify in English and typing test and whose economic condition was also poor. The petitioner could not be appointed as his name was not recommended by the Board on the ground that he could not qualify in typing test and personal interview. In paras 14 and 15 of the reply affidavit, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner is in indigent condition but he was not appointed as he could not qualify in typing test and personal inter view. 5. We have heard Mr. Y. S. Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. A. Sharma, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel. 6. The law regarding appointment on compassionate grounds has been laid down by the apex Court in various decisions. Our attention has been drawn to Smt Sushma Gosain and others v, Union of India and others, (1989) 4 SCC 468. In para 9 of the above judgment it has been laid down that all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds should be dealt with promptly and there should not be any delay in appointment as the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. It has also been held that if there is no suitable post for appointment, supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. The above law has also been followed by subsequent decisions of the apex Court and we need not burden this judgment by referring to other decisions. 7. Our attention has also been drawn to Umesh Kumar Nagpal v State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138, wherein the apex Court laid down that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to pro vide employment. 7. Our attention has also been drawn to Umesh Kumar Nagpal v State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138, wherein the apex Court laid down that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to pro vide employment. It was of course held that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future, The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole bread-winner. 8. Though the decision of the apex Court in Auditor General of India and others v. G Ananta Rajeshwara Rao, (1994) ] SCC 192, has been placed before us by the learned Counsel at the Bar, it is not necessary to refer to this decision as it was held by the apex Court that extension of benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds to near relatives of the deceased Government servant is vague and, therefore, bad. In the case in hand, the son of the deceased employee has claimed appointment on compassionate grounds, therefore, the above ratio is not applicable to the present case. 9. Mr. P. A. Sharma, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the decision of the apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar and another, (1994) 2 SCC 718, in support of his contention that courts can not order appointment on compassionate grounds de hors the provisions of statutory regulations and instructions. It may be stated here that the office memorandum at Annexure R-l to the reply affidavit is the policy decision of the Government of India for appointment on compassionate grounds and, therefore, the ratio would apply provided the present case is not governed by the above office memorandum. Similar view was also, expressed by the apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Chandra Narain Verma, (1994) 2 SCC 752. 10. Similar view was also, expressed by the apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Chandra Narain Verma, (1994) 2 SCC 752. 10. The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the application by the present petitioner was a belated one and, therefore, it is not in consonance with the policy for appointment on compassionate grounds as the family has maintained for five years after the death of the sole bread earner. In this connection we may refer to Clause 7 of the above office memorandum at Annexure R-I. The said clause lays as follows: "Belated requests for compassionate appointments Ministries/Departments can also consider the requests for compassionate appointment even where the death took place long ago, say five years or so, while considering such belated requests it should be kept in view that the concept of compassionate appointment is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to the family on the passing away of the Government servant in harness. The very fact that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years should normally be, adequate proof to show that the family had some dependable means of subsistance. Therefore, examination of such cases call for a great deal of circumspection. The decision in these cases may be taken at the level of Secretary only." 11. Thus, it would appear from the above clause that the policy makers have also considered the question of belated application for appointment on compassionate grounds and accordingly the above provision was made inter alia providing that requests for compassionate appointment, even where the death took place long back, can also be considered but the decision has to be taken at the level of Secretary only. Though the present petitioner applied after five years from the death of his father, his case was considered for appointment on compassionate grounds and accordingly he was allowed to sit in the qualifying test alongwith others but he was not appointed as lie could not qualify in the above test conducted by the Board. Though the present petitioner applied after five years from the death of his father, his case was considered for appointment on compassionate grounds and accordingly he was allowed to sit in the qualifying test alongwith others but he was not appointed as lie could not qualify in the above test conducted by the Board. That apart in the reply affidavit, it has been clearly stated that the family of the petitioner is in indigent condition In other words, they want financial assistance to tide over the crisis For r considering the case of the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the respondents are estopped from raising the point that the application by the petitioner was a belated one in view of Clause 7 of the office memorandum at Annexure R-l and also the fact that the petitioner is in indigent condition and his case was taken up for appointment on compassionate ground. It is not disputed that the petitioner has the educational qualification required for appointment as lower division clerk, From Clause 9 of the abovesaid office memorandum we find that while selecting it has only to be considered whether the person has got essential educational and technical qualifications and experience required for the post of lower division clerk. In the circumstances, rejection of his case on the ground that he could not qualify in typing test and personal interview is not sustainable. 12. Mr. P. A, Sharma, learned Central Government Standing Counsel has also urged that the petitioner could not be given offer of appointment as posts were limited and for that purpose a qualifying test had to be con ducted. This submission is not tenable in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in Smt. Sushma Gosain (supra) as the apex Court has held that for appointment on compassionate grounds a supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the person In this case also, in addition to what has been stated above, we are of the opinion that having decided to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as he has got the requisite qualification, the petitioner is entitled to get appointment 13. For the reasons stated above, we allow the present petition and direct the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and to offer him appointment for the post of lower division clerk. Petition allowed.