N. N. MATHUR J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned. Advocates for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Typist on compassionate ground in June, 1985. The petitioner was given three opportunities to pass the pre-service examinatjon, but he could not clear the same. The petitioner, apprehending termination, has approached this Court seeking direction to grant additional chance to the petitioner to appear in the examination and further that his services may not be terminated on the ground that the petitioner has not passed the pre-service training examination in three chances. This Court, by interim order dated 3. 4. 1998 directed to maintain status-quo and as such he is continuing in the job. ( 2 ) THE Gujarat Non-Secretariat and Secretariat Clerk-cum-Typists (Training and examination) Rules, 1976 provide for the scheme of giving training and examination to select Clerks and Clerk-cum-Typists appointed in the non-secretariat department. Rule 6 of the said Rules reads as under : "on conclusion of the training, a candidate shall be required to appear at the post training examination and to pass it, in not more than three chances, provided that the chance already availed of, under these rules, provided further that the candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes may be given one more chance, provided further, if in the case of any such candidate, the State Government is satisfied that he could not pass the examination, at which he had his last chance for the reasons, beyond his control, or if he failed to pass such examination by very narrow margin of marks. The State Government may after recording reasons in writing, give him one more chance to pass the examination on the payment of examination fees of Rs. 15/- provided further that if a candidate has to pass an Examination in the first/second and/or third chance, in the case of Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes candidate, he shall be required to appear in the subsequent examination/examination held after expiry of 30 days from the date of declaration of the examination, in which he failed, but he shall not be required to attend the Training Class again. " a reading of the above Rule shows that on conclusion of the training a candidate is required to appear at the post-training examination. The employee is given three maximum chances except variation in certain cases mentioned therein. The Government issued Notification dated 15. 1. " a reading of the above Rule shows that on conclusion of the training a candidate is required to appear at the post-training examination. The employee is given three maximum chances except variation in certain cases mentioned therein. The Government issued Notification dated 15. 1. 1997 which provides for two more grace chances in exceptional cases. The question arises as to whether the services of the employee is liable to be terminated on failing to pass any examination even on availing the third chance or the service is to be continued in case the grace chance is given till the result of the examination is declared. ( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner has referred to an unreported decision of this court rendered on 16. 4. 1990 in Special Civil Application No. 2271/90. In that case, pending the petitioners application for giving grace chance, his services were terminated. This Court, by order dated 16. 4. 1990, directed to decide the petitioners application by 15. 6. 1990, till then the petitioner was allowed to continue in service by setting aside the order of termination. ( 4 ) THE learned Advocate has next brought to my notice an unreported judgment of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 3859/90. The said petition was dismissed as infructuous. I failed to understand how this order is of any help to the petitioner. The learned Advocate has also placed reliance on a decision of the Division bench rendered in SCA No. 1940/95 decided on May 2, 1995. In the said case, the learned Single Judge, while admitting the petition directed the Panchayat to take back the petitioner and continue him in service. The Panchayat preferred LPA against the said interlocutory order to the Division Bench. The matter came up before the Division Bench on 18. 9. 1995. The Court expressed its anguish in not carrying on the order the learned single Judge dated 2. 5. 1995 and granting stay itself. The Court observed thus "it is unfortunate that public body like District Panchayat has granted stay itself and has not complied with the order of the Court not only from 10. 3. 1995 but also from 2. 5. 1995. " this order is also of no help to the petitioner. 5. 1995 and granting stay itself. The Court observed thus "it is unfortunate that public body like District Panchayat has granted stay itself and has not complied with the order of the Court not only from 10. 3. 1995 but also from 2. 5. 1995. " this order is also of no help to the petitioner. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned AGP has brought to my notice a decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 9784/83 dated 10. 11. 1993. K. G. Shah, J. (as He then was) dealing with the same controversy, referred to a circular dated 20. 7. 1983 which provides that if a candidate fails to pass pre-training examination within 3 chances in case of general category and in favour (sic) chances in the case of Scheduled Tribe/scheduled castes candidates, his services are to be terminated and if he applies for grace chances, and if such request is granted, then in that case, he has to appear at the said examination while remaining at home and if he pass the same, he would be taken back in service. On reading the said circular, the Court held that the Government circular will leave no room for doubt that if the candidate fails to pass the pre-service training examination within the specific chances, his services are required to be brought to an end and even for the purpose of appearing at a grace chance he has to remain at home and if he passes the examination at a grace chance, he would be taken back in service. The court further held that the termination of the services of the petitioner on the ground that she has failed to pass the pre-service training examination within the specific chances becomes unexceptionable. ( 6 ) THE doctrine of equality before law and equality of opportunity in the matter of employment, enshrined under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India demands appointments in public service strictly on the basis of open invitation of application and merit. However, appointment on compassionate ground is exception, as such appointees can form a class in themselves, the objective being to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the bread earner of the family and sudden misery faced by the members of the family of such employee of the Central or State Government or any other public authority. However, appointment on compassionate ground is exception, as such appointees can form a class in themselves, the objective being to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the bread earner of the family and sudden misery faced by the members of the family of such employee of the Central or State Government or any other public authority. The benefit provided under the rules or regulation framed or instructions issued are not a matter of right, as it is need-based. If there is no need or the need is not that acute at the time of consideration, the dependent shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. Such appointments must be regulated strictly in accordance with the Rules and Regulations framed by the concerned authorities. If the Rules or Regulations from which the right of compassionate appointment flows provides for passing of Departmental examination as in case of other employees selected on merit, the umbrella of sympathy cannot be further enlarged to extend protection in favour of persons who have failed to pass the examination within the prescribed chance. Once a person is allowed to march over the merit, as an exceptional case, he/she must prove worthy to it by hard work, devotion and sincerity. He/she is expected to raise standard of merit at least to minimum requisite level. An undue sympathy in favour of one at the cost of efficiency in service and depriving person of merit, shall cause more harm and will operate against public policy. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, the petitioner is a young man. He was given appointment on compassionate ground with clear stipulation that he will require to pass requisite examination. He failed to pass the said examination inspite of three chances given to him. This reflects on his seriousness to the job and the family both. He ought to know that the job which he get out of normal line will not be regularised, if he does not pass the requisite examination, which may bring misery back to his family. He may be given additional or grace chance as per the rules which he can appear sitting at home, if he passes the examination, his case for re-induction can be considered in accordance with the relevant Rules, but he cannot be continued in service for the present. He may be given additional or grace chance as per the rules which he can appear sitting at home, if he passes the examination, his case for re-induction can be considered in accordance with the relevant Rules, but he cannot be continued in service for the present. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this Special Civil Application and the same is accordingly rejected. Rules discharged. Interim relief is vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ( 9 ) THE learned Advocate states that since the petitioner was protected by the interim relief of this Court, the interim relief may further be continued for a period of three weeks with a view to avail remedy of LPA if so advised. The prayer is declined. .