Order Heard counsel for the appellant. 2. The father of the appellant died in harness on 9.2.1982. The appellant was then a minor. At the relevant time, period for making application for appointment on compassionate ground was two years from the date of death of the concerned employee. It is not known when the appellant attained majority, but he applied for appointment on compassionate ground sometime in the year 1986. Obviously the application was made beyond the period of time prescribed by the relevant circular. Since he was not favoured with order of appointment on compassionate ground, he filed a writ petition before this Court being CWJC No. 10976 of 1993. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench on 2.12.1994. It is not disputed that the said order of this Court has attained finality as it was not appealed against. 3. Apart from other reasons, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions that the appointment on compassionate ground serves a purpose, namely, to provide some relief to the family of the deceased employee facing financial problems on account of premature death of the concerned employee. Such purpose can never be served if the appointment on compassionate ground is not granted immediately when it is required and is granted several years later. We can not lose sight of the fact that under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, no person can be employed on the ground of descent alone. The appointments given on compassion ground are not hit by the prohibition contained in Article 16 of the Constitution because the purpose for which, appointment is given, is different, namely, providing some relief to the family of a deceased employee. If such purpose is not served by giving such appointment, it would amount to giving appointment on the ground of descent which is prohibited by Article 16 of the Constitution. 4. It has also been held by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court that grant of appointment on compassionate ground will not wait for the attainment of majority of the concerned applicant. 4. It has also been held by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court that grant of appointment on compassionate ground will not wait for the attainment of majority of the concerned applicant. It is open to the dependants to make application within time prescribed under the Circular and in a given case, if the applicant attains majority within the period prescribed for making such application, even though, he was minor at the time when the concerned employee died, his application can not be thrown out on the ground that he was not eligible for appointment on the date on which the concerned employee had died. What is, however, material is the fact that he should make application within the time prescribed by the Rules or Circulars, as the case may be. The Supreme Court has also held that the appointment on compassion ground should be given strictly in accordance with the scheme, and the Courts have no power to direct for appointment on compassionate ground de hors the rules on considerations which are not relevant under the scheme or rules. Assuming that the scheme has been framed for the benefit of the dependants of the deceased employees and in the sense it is a beneficial provision, that does not mean that the requirement of the scheme be stretched to such an extent that the very purpose of the scheme is defeated. 5. In this case, however, apart from such consideration on merit, since the appellant's earlier writ petition for the same relief was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 2.12.1994, the appellant cannot be allowed to file second writ petition for the same relief. 6. In these circumstances, this letters patent appeal is dismissed.