Honble SHETHNA, J.–On the death of father of the petitioner, who was an employee of the respondent R.S.E.B., the petitioner was given an appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Bill Distributor, which he accepted under protest. Thereafter, he has filed this petition and claimed that he should have been appointed on the post of L.D.C. Appointment made on the compassionate ground is not a matter of right, which can be claimed by any one including the petitioner. As per the policy, norms and Rules the employer has to consider and provide employment to the dependents of the deceased Govt. servant, who was working with them so that the family members of the deceased may not starve. There is no question of accepting any appointment under protest. The petitioner could have refused the appointment on the post of Bill Distributor if he felt that the post was not suitable and he claimed to be appointed on the post of L.D.C. Merely because some other persons were appointed on the post of L.D.C. on the demise of an employee working with the Board, it would not give any right to the petitioner to be appointed on the post of L.D.C. On this point Supreme Court Judgment reported in 1995 S.C.C. (L & S) page 10 (1) is very clear and it is binding to this Court. (2). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed, with no orders as to costs.