JUDGMENT 1. - This Special Appeal is directed against the order, passed by the learned Single Judge on 14th March, 1996, dismissing the writ petition. 2. The father of the appellant was working as a IV Class employee in the Social Welfare Project, Viratnagar, Jaipur, run by the Rajasthan State Social Welfare Board. He died on 5.12.81. At that time, the appellant was 18 years of age. 3. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, it was stated by him that he had made an application for -appointment on 7.11.89. Relying upon the statement made in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the application for appointment was made after a considerable delay of eight years. Apart from that, the vested right of he petitioner to be appointed under the provisions of Rajasthan Recruitment's of Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1975 has also been considered. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in 1996 (2) JT 542 , Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and another and 1994 (3) JT SC-525, Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, it has been held that the appellant does not have a vested right of appointment on compassionate ground. 4. Mr. Ashok Gaur, appearing on behalf of the appellant states that the learned Single Judge had decided the matter in different perspective. According to Mr. Gaur, the application for appointment was made on 30th of December, 1981, just after 25 days of the death of his father but when he was questioned about. the averments made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, he stated that there might have been corrections in the writ petition. The entire record of the case was made available to him to inspect whether any correction was made. After looking to the file, he admitted that no correction was made in the record. Emphasis was laid by him on Annexure-2, which is a copy of the application dated 30th December, 1981. Mr. Gaur was not a counsel in the writ petition. He stated the he argued in the writ petition. The judgment was dictated in the open Court. It was his duty to have brought to the notice of the Court then and there that wrong facts were coning in the judgment. Mr. Gaur was not a counsel in the writ petition. He stated the he argued in the writ petition. The judgment was dictated in the open Court. It was his duty to have brought to the notice of the Court then and there that wrong facts were coning in the judgment. It was not done by him, so"it is presumed that no such contention was raised by him. Apart from this, if the contents are factually correct, then he should have filed a review petition, but it was also not done by him. Thus, we are not inclined to accept this contention. 5. In view of the settled law that the dependents of Government servants do not have any vested right to get the appointment under the Rules of 1975, the appellant had no right to be appointed. At the most, he had a right to be considered for the appointment. The scope of the Rules of 1975 has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 948/96, Kunta Devi v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 27th September, 1996, which has also been decided following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Naresh Tanwar and Umesh Kumar (supra). According to that also, the appellant does not have any right. Admittedly, the petitioner's father died on 5.12.81. Fifteen years have been passed. The family of the deceased could survive for 15 years. The 1975 Rules does not entitle him to get appointment. 6. The special appeal having no merit, is accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******