A. J. SADASHIVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is yet another case seeking for employment on compassionate grounds. ( 2 ) THE facts set-out by the petitioner in his petition are sufficient to reject his petition, for, he is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground, as he is not one of the dependants of the deceased employee. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is admittedly an younger brother of one Kashinathayya Jukti Hiremath, a deceased employee of the respondent-Electricity Board. He died unmarried on May 6, 1991. The petitioner claiming that he was looked after by his elder brother during his life time has filed an application for an employment in the respondent-Electricity Board on compassionate grounds. ( 4 ) SRI Subba Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Board has produced the Official Memorandum dated april 16, 1986, issued from the Secretariat of the Electricity board relating to appointment on compassionate grounds. Under the terms of the said Official Memorandum, it is only the wife, husband, son, and in case the wife is not willing to take up employment or if she is not alive unmarried daughter in the absence of wife and son, and brother of the wife of the deceased are the only persons who are entitled for being appointed on compassionate grounds. The brother of the deceased employee is not considered as one of the dependants of such employee. In which is similar to the case on hand, the Division Bench has held as follows :". . . . . . . THE appointments on compassionate grounds are made in accordance with the rules framed by the employer and no person can claim that the appointment shall be made as a matter of right even if not strictly with the rules or the scheme. In the present case on an earlier occasion the learned Single Judge noticed that the brother of the deceased employee is not one of the dependants and who can be appointed under the scheme on compassionate grounds. The learned Single Judge thereupon directed that the case of the respondent shall be considered, if possible, by relaxing the rules as contemplated under Clause 13 of the scheme. The Board thereupon considered the claim and noticed that the respondent has received about Rs. 80,000/- out of the services rendered by the deceased. The learned Single Judge thereupon directed that the case of the respondent shall be considered, if possible, by relaxing the rules as contemplated under Clause 13 of the scheme. The Board thereupon considered the claim and noticed that the respondent has received about Rs. 80,000/- out of the services rendered by the deceased. It is therefore obvious that what impressed the Board was that the respondent is not at all entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. It is futile to except that the appointment should be made even if the element of compassion is totally absent when the demand is made. The appointment on compassionate grounds should not be made as a matter of course as soon as the application is received. In our judgment, the learned Single Judge was clearly in error in giving direction to the Board to reconsider the matter and make appointment to a suitable post. " ( 5 ) FOLLOWING the aforesaid decision and also in view of the fact that the petitioner is not one of the dependants of the deceased employee, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. --- *** --- .