Honble TIBREWAL, J.–A short question that arises for consideration in this petition is; Whether the petitioner can lay a further claim for getting appointment as Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) or Nakedar, once he had accepted appointment as a Sub Nakedar on compassionate ground under the Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be refe-rred to as the Rules)? (2). In short, facts of the case are that petitioners father Shri Ram Swaroop Pandey had died on 15.7.78 while in service as Nakedar in Municipal Council, Alwar. On an application made under Rule 5, petitioner was given appointment on the post of Sub- Nakedar in the pay scale applicable to the said post vide order dated,June 10, 1994 (Annex.1), issued by the Administrator, Municipal Council, Alwar. The petitioner accepted appointment and joined the post. Thereafter, on January 3, 1995, he moved an application to the Administrator, Municipal Council, Alwar, to provide him appointment on the post of L.D.C. or Nakedar as his father was working as Nakedar at the time of his death. He, then, gave a notice for demand of justicethrough his Advocate, Shri M.C. Sharma, and when nothing was done, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to appoint him as LDC/or Nakedar with all consequential benefits. (3). The contention of the learned counsel is that when appointment was given to the petitioner as Sub Nakedar, no post of Nakedar was lying vacant andnow on availability of the post he is entitled to get appointment as Nakedar. According to the Counsel, the petitioner fulfills educational qualifications prescribed for the post of Nakedar and his right to get appointment in the said post cannot be denied for non- availability of a vacancy at the time when appointment was given to him on the post of Sub-Nakedar. Learned counsel strongly relied uponRule-5 which provides to give a suitable employment in Government service to a member of the family of the deceased Government servant. (4). In my view, the above contentions have no merit. This court and the Apex Court of the country have consistently observed in various decisions that the object or granting employment on compassionate ground is to enable the family to tideover the sudden crisis on the death of the bread earner of the family. (4). In my view, the above contentions have no merit. This court and the Apex Court of the country have consistently observed in various decisions that the object or granting employment on compassionate ground is to enable the family to tideover the sudden crisis on the death of the bread earner of the family. The object is not to give a member of the family a post, muich less a post for the post held by the deceased. It has been further laid down the mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. Further the applicant has no right to any particular post of his choice, he can only claim to be considered forthe post available at the relevant time. (5). In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others (1), the matter has been examined by the Apex Court and it has been hld that normal rule of appointment in the public services should be on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. However, one of its exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and living his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases out of pure humanitarian consideration and taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision has been madein the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. It has been observed thus:- ``The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emer- gency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destination. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned. (6). In State of Haryana vs. Naresh Kumar Bali (2), the son of the deceased Government servant was given appointment as a Clerk on compassionate groundwhich was accepted by him. His further claim for the post of teacher was rejected by the Supreme Court observing as under:- ``Though the respondent claimed that he had applied for the post of a teacher the Subordinate Service Selection Board had not chosen him for the post of a teacher because he did not have the requisite qualification. In fact, the respondent did not object to his appointment as a clerk and his claim for consideration for the post of teacher was one year after his appointment. Thus, the appointment on compassionate ground as per the scheme had been completed. (7). In fact, the respondent did not object to his appointment as a clerk and his claim for consideration for the post of teacher was one year after his appointment. Thus, the appointment on compassionate ground as per the scheme had been completed. (7). In State of Rajasthan vs. Shri Umrao Singh (3), the facts were that appoint-ment on compassionate ground was given on the post of L.D.C. to the son of the deceased government servant who died while he was serving as Sub-Inspector, C.I.D., Special Branch. After accepting appointment as L.D.C., he sought appointment as Sub-Inspector, which was denied. Aggrieved by the denial, he preferred writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 6.8.92 directed for consideration of his candidature for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in accordance with the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules. The Special Appeal was also dismissed on the ground of delay. On filing a Special Leave Petition by the State of Rajasthan, it was observed as under: (Para No.8) ``Admittedly the respondents father died in harness while working as Sub-Inspector, C.I.D. (Special Branch) on 16.3.1988. The respondent filed an application on 8.4.1988 for his appointment on compassionate ground as Sub-Inspector or L.D.C. according to the availability of vacancy. On a consideration of his plea, he was appointed to the post of L.D.C. by order dated 14.12.1988. He accepted the appointment as L.D.C. Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of `endless compassion. Eligibility to be app- ointed as Sub- Inspector of Police is one thing, the process of selection is yet another thing. Merely because of the so-called eligibility, the learned Single Judge of the High Court was persuaded to the view that direction be issued under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules which has no application to the facts of this case. It was also observed in para-10 ``Therefore, once the right has consummated as we indicated earlier, any further or second consideration for a higher post on the ground for compassion would not arise. (8). From the decisions it is clear that once the right under the Rules to get employment is consummated any further or second consideration for a higher post on the ground of compassion would not arise. (8). From the decisions it is clear that once the right under the Rules to get employment is consummated any further or second consideration for a higher post on the ground of compassion would not arise. The present case is squarely covered by the ratio of the above decisions. (9). In the present case, the petitioner accepted the appointment as Sub Nakedar which was offered to him by appointment letter dated June, 1994. His sub-sequent claim to appoint him as Nakedar on the ground of availability of a vacant post of Nakedar or his father was holding the post of Nakedar is not sustainable. (10). Consequently, I find no merit in this petition and it is dismissed summarily.