JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct to the respondents to provide her appointment on suitable post i.e. L.D.C. or U.D.C. or Junior Accountant on compassionate grounds. The petitioner's husband, late Shri R.C. Mathur was an employee of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short the Corporation) and died on May 19, 1996 while in service. At the time of his death, he was 4-,irking as Manager (Operation) Deceased R.G. Mathur left behind him his widow i.e. the petitioner and one minor son of 10 years who were fully dependent on him. After his death, petitioner submitted an application to provide her suitable employment/appointment on compassionate grounds. Thereupon, she received a communication dated, October 11, 1996 from the Executive Manager (Personnel) intimating her about sending her name to the Chief Manager, Sanganer Depot, to provide her appointment as Bus Conductor. Thereafter, she received appointment letter dated, 26.3.97 (Annex. 3), whereby she was given appointment as Bus Conductor in pay scale Rs.950-20-1150-25- 1400-30-1640-40-1680/- subject to certain conditions laid down in the said letter. One condition is that she will obtain licence of a Bus Conductor within two months if she was not having the same. The duties of a Bus Conductor being highly onerous and unsuitable for a female, the petitioner made a representation to the Chairman, of the Corporation on 13.6.97 drawing his attention towards the difficulties of a female in performing onerous duties of a Bus ,Conductor and a request was made to provide her appointment at least as Lower Division Clerk. When nothing was heard even after the above representation, she lave a notice for demand of justice through her counsel, Shri V.P. Mathur by registered post on 2.7.97, in which a similar request was made to provide her appointment at least in the post of LDC. In the notice, attention was also drawn that one Smt. Kailash Devi, who was given appointment as a Bus Conductor in similar circumstances Bus Conductor, filed writ petition No. 4962/95 before this Court and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 29.11.96 giving direction to the Corporation to provide her a post of LDC on regular basis within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. 2. In back-drop of the above factual position the present writ petition has been filed on 25th July, 1997 when no action was taken by the respondents even after getting notice for demand of justice. 3. The respondents have filed a joint return and factual aspect is not disputed by them. However, the plea taken by them is that vide resolution No. 21/96 passed on May 28, 1996, the Corporation has taken a policy decision to provide employment to the dependents of the deceased employees on compassionate grounds in the posts of conductor or driver or on such posts in the workshop which carry pay scale either equivalent to that of a driver or a Conductor or lesser than that. According to the respondents, a specific policy decision was also taken by the Corporation that no appointment in Class IV or L.D.C. services or other Ministerial Class shall be given on compassionate grounds A copy of the office order, detailing out guidelines for providing employment to the dependents of the deceased employees in compliance to resolution No. 21/96 has been placed on record as Annexure R/1. It is further pleaded that realising practical difficulty of women dependents, the Managing Director has issued office order dated, 29.5.97 whereby instructions have been issued that such women, instead of being given field duty, may be adjusted/employed for doing work in (i) Enquiry Branch, or (ii) Checking Branch or (iii) Bag Branch. That in case of petitioner also, a suitable order has been passed in consonance to the above office order dated, 29.5.97. 4. Shri R.C. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner with his usual softness but assertiveness, contended that the petitioner is a Graduate and the post of Bus Conductor offered to her is quite unsuitable for a female as it attaches onerous duties to be performed. Learned counsel contended that employment on compassionate ground is intended to meet financial hardship of the family on death of the bread earner by providing appointment to one member of the family, and the very object shall stand frustrated if appointment is given to the petitioner to the post of a Bus Conductor which cannot be performed by her. Learned counsel contended that employment on compassionate ground is intended to meet financial hardship of the family on death of the bread earner by providing appointment to one member of the family, and the very object shall stand frustrated if appointment is given to the petitioner to the post of a Bus Conductor which cannot be performed by her. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner should be given appointment at least as a Lower Division Clerk which is lowest in Ministerial staff keeping in view her educational qualification and the fact of her being a female. Mr. Joshi also drew attention of this Court that in the year 1981, the RSRTC had prescribed the procedure to be called "Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (Recruitment of Dependents of the Corporation Employees Dying while in Service) Procedure, 1981. This procedure categorically and specifically states to provide suitable employment to a dependent of the deceased employee on the post of Driver, Conductor, LDC, Class-IV or any other similar post not carrying pay scale higher than that of LDC in the Corporation subject to ful fillment of educational qualification prescribed for the post. Lastly, it was contended that in similar circumstances, in a writ petition filed by Smt. Kailash Devi, this Court has i directed to provide her a post of LDC on regular basis vide decision dated, 29.11.96, reported in Smt. Kailash Devi v. RSRTC and Others (1997 WLC (Raj.) UC 294). 5. On the other hand, Shri Mahendra Goyal, learned counsel for the Corporation with equal vehemence contended that there are no statutory rules or regulations to regulate appointments to the dependents of the employees on compassionate grounds and the Corporation has been issuing administrative instructions to regulate the procedure of such appointments. The last policy decision in this connection was taken by the Corporation on May 28, 1996 by adopting decision/resolution No. 21/96 in the shape of i guidelines as enumerated in Office Order, dated 25.6.96 (Annexure R/1). According to Mr. Goyal, after the aforesaid policy decision, no appointment in Class IV service or the post of LDC or any other post of Ministerial staff can be offered/provided on compassionate ground to a dependent of an employee of the Corporation dying while in service. According to Mr. Goyal, after the aforesaid policy decision, no appointment in Class IV service or the post of LDC or any other post of Ministerial staff can be offered/provided on compassionate ground to a dependent of an employee of the Corporation dying while in service. The policy decision clearly provides that such appointments can be given in the post of Driver, Conductor or such posts in the Workshop which carry pay scale equivalent to a Driver or Conductor or less than that. Mr. Goyal also pointed out that when working difficulties of female appointees were brought to the noticb of the Corporation, the Managing Director has issued Office Order to the effect that instead of posting them in the field, they may be employed as per requirement in (i) Enquiry Branch (ii) Checking Branch (ii) Bag Branch and the petitioner can be adjusted/employed in any of the aforesaid branch as such, her grievance no more exists. Mr. Goyal, then, contended that the object of compassionate appointment is not to provide employment, but to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and such employee has no right to claim a particular appointment or to get appointment on such post which is not permissible as per policy decision of the Corporation. Reliance is placed on decision of the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others (1994) 4 SCC 138 and State of Bihar & others v. Samsuzzoha and others (1996) 4 SCC 546 ). 6. With regard to decision in the case of Kailash Devi (supra) learned counsel contended that the policy decision of the Corporation dated, 28.5.96 was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge. 7. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions. 8. There is no quarrel to the proposition that the scheme to provide employment to one member of the family of the deceased employee dying during service period has a social object behind it and it is intended to mitigate the hardship of the family on death of the bread earner of the family, but it has some inherent restrictions. The first restriction is that the dependent of the deceased employee has no right to any particular post of his choice. He can only claim to be considered for the post which is permissible under the scheme. The first restriction is that the dependent of the deceased employee has no right to any particular post of his choice. He can only claim to be considered for the post which is permissible under the scheme. Then the object of such scheme is not to give a member of such family a post held by the deceased. The normal rule of appointments in the public services is on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. To this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury without any means of livelihood. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case (supra), it was laid down by the Supreme Court observing as under : "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 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 emergency. 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 destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. 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 destitution. 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 families 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." 9. In State of M.P. and others v. Ramesh Kumar Sharma (1994 Supp. (3) SCC 661) it was laid down by the Supreme Court that the dependent of the deceased Government servant is not entitled to higher post of his choice merely because he fulfills the requisite eligibility qualification. In this case, the State Government had taken a policy decision to provide employment on compassionate grounds in Class IV posts irrespective of qualifications of the candidates. The Supreme Court held that the principle adopted by the Government cannot be said to be unjustified or illegal and directions by the High Court to provide Class III post was not justified and sustainable. 10. The procedure for providing appointment on compassionate ground can be regulated either by framing statutory rules or regulations or even by administrative guidelines. One has a right to be considered for employment as per the rules or guidelines and beyond that no one has a legal right to claim appointment on a post not permissible under the rules or guidelines. 11. In the instant case, the Corporation has taken a policy decision and guidelines have been prescribed as enumerated in Office Order No. Mu./Karmik/6/96/587 dated 25.6.96 (Annex. R-1). A perusal of these guidelines makes it evident that appointment on compassionate ground is permissible in the post of Drivers, Conductors or such posts in the Workshop having pay scale equivalent to a Driver or Conductor or less than that. It is specifically provided that no appointment shall be given as Class-IV employee, L.D.C. or in Ministerial Staff. R-1). A perusal of these guidelines makes it evident that appointment on compassionate ground is permissible in the post of Drivers, Conductors or such posts in the Workshop having pay scale equivalent to a Driver or Conductor or less than that. It is specifically provided that no appointment shall be given as Class-IV employee, L.D.C. or in Ministerial Staff. This policy decision appears to have been taken for the reason that the Corporation is engaged in plying buses for transportation and it has more posts of Drivers and Conductors at its disposal for providing appointment. The posts in Class-IV or Class-Ill services or other Ministerial Staff being limited with the Corporation it may not provide appointment in such services. No discrimination can be made by the Corporation in providing employment to dependents of Ministerial staff/Administrative Officers and that of Drivers, Conductors and persons engaged in workshops of the Corporation. In any case, there cannot be any intervention of the Court in the policy decision and no direction can be given by it that one should be given appointment on a post other than the post which is permissible as per rules or guidelines. 12. I also do not find any force in the contention of Shri Joshi that Office Order dated 25.6.96 is meant only for the dependents of Drivers, Conductors and other employees working in workshop of the Corporation. Then Mr. Goyal appearing for the Corporation has categorically stated that the so-called procedure of the year 1981 is no more in existence and presently, recruitments on compassionate grounds are governed by the Office Order dated, 25.6.96. I find no reason to disbelieve the statement which has been made by Shri Goyal. In the case of Smt. Kailash Devi (supra), the policy decision was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. It is unfortunate that contradictory decisions take place on account of lapses on the part of the employees of the Corporation. The said order being contrary to the policy decision, it should have been challenged by the Corporation by preferring an appeal before Division Bench of this Court. It is unfortunate that contradictory decisions take place on account of lapses on the part of the employees of the Corporation. The said order being contrary to the policy decision, it should have been challenged by the Corporation by preferring an appeal before Division Bench of this Court. However, on the basis of the decision in the case of Kailash Devi, no direction can be given by me as in that case, the policy decision which governs such appointments, was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and the matter was not considered in the light of policy decision dated, 25.6.1996. 13. Undoubtedly, the post of a Bus Conductor is onerous and difficult to be performed by a female. This difficulty has been realised by the Corporation also and realising this difficulty, the Managing Director has issued Office Order No. Mu./Karmik/1-C/97/3010 dated 29.5.97 (Annex. R- 2) to employ females in any of the branches specified in the said Order. The petitioner can be employed/adjusted in any of the branches instead of sending her on field duty as a Conductor. Mr. Goyal has made a categorical statement that the petitioner shall be adjusted in any of the branches mentioned in the order dated 29.5.97 and she shall not be compelled to do field duty as a bus Conductor. The pay of the post of Conductor is equivalent to LDC as stated by Shri Goyal. In these circumstances, I find that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed by the subsequent Office Order dated, 29.5.97. However, it appears that no specific order has been passed in favour of the petitioner adjusting her in any of the branches as enumerated in the order dated, 29.5.97, as no such order has been placed on record by the respondents. In view of this, the petition is disposed of with observation and directions that the petitioner shall not be compelled to perform field duties as bus Conductor and she shall be employed/adjusted in any of the branches enumerated in order dated, 29.5.97. If the petitioner chooses to give any preference to be employed/adjusted in a particular branch, attempt shall be made to adjust her in that branch subject to availability of requirement. Necessary order in this connection shall be passed within 15 days from today. 14. If the petitioner chooses to give any preference to be employed/adjusted in a particular branch, attempt shall be made to adjust her in that branch subject to availability of requirement. Necessary order in this connection shall be passed within 15 days from today. 14. The petition stands disposed of as indicated above with no order as to costs.Petition disposed of as per above observation. *******