ORDER G.C. Bharuka, J.—The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13th February, 1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 518 of 1997 by which the Tribunal has upheld the termination of the Petitioner from the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (in short "ED-BPM"). 2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. One Sri K.V. Prakash was working with the Postal Department as ED-BPM at Kudumallige Branch Office. While in service, he expired on 4.9.1993. Till then he was unmarried. But he left behind him his mother Smt. Lalitha and one unmarried sister Kum. K.V. Muktha (Respondent No. 5). 3. Petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the uncle of the deceased ED-BPM. Though the Petitioner was not entitled to any appointment on compassionate ground, but still she was given a provisional appointment by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Shimoga under his letter dated 12.1.1994 (Annexure-A) and the same was sent for approval to the Post Master General, South Canara Region, Bangalore. The Respondent-Post Master General refused the request since the Senior Superintendent of Post Office had no power to give appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly the services of the Petitioner was terminated by an order dated 13.11.1995 (Annexure-B). The Petitioner questioned the said order before the Tribunal in O.A. 2123/1995 which was disposed of on 12.1.1996 (Annexure-C). The Tribunal directed that steps be taken for filling up the vacancy as per the Recruitment Rules and till a regular appointee is posted, the Petitioner should be allowed to continue in the post. Subsequently, by an order dated 9.9.1997, the fifth Respondent was appointed on compassionate ground pursuant to the recommendation of the Circle Compassionate Appointment Committee. Consequently the appointment of the Petitioner was terminated under the order dated 9.9.1997 (Annexure-D). When challenged, as noticed above, the Administrative Tribunal, by its impugned order, has upheld both the appointment of the fifth Respondent as also the consequential termination of the Petitioner. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the order of the Tribunal is erroneous in law because she having been allowed to serve on the post in question right from January, 1994, could not have been thrown out after three years, i.e., on 9.9.1997. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the order of the Tribunal is erroneous in law because she having been allowed to serve on the post in question right from January, 1994, could not have been thrown out after three years, i.e., on 9.9.1997. His further submission is that the appointment of the fifth Respondent on compassionate ground after a lapse of three years, is also bad because it is contrary to the concept of giving appointment on compassion. 5. The appointment of Extra-Departmental Agent is governed by the Rules called "Posts and Telegraphs Extra-Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 ('the Rules' for short). The validity of the Rules has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad, JT (1997) 10 SC 342. In this case the Apex Court has held that the Rules in question are a complete code in itself and do not violate the principles of natural justice and keeping in view the purpose for which those have been framed, it cannot be said to be violative of any constitutional provisions. 6. Rule 3 of the Rules provide for and declares the authorities as set out in the schedule to the Rules to be the appointing authorities for ED-Agents. So far as the ED-Sub Post Master and ED-Branch Post Master are concerned, the appointing authority is the Officer-in-charge of the Division. Therefore, admittedly, the Senior Superintendent of Post Office had no authority to make appointment on the post of ED-BPM as has been sought to be done by Annexure-A, which was subsequently even disapproved by the Post-Master General. Thereafter the Petitioner had continued in service only pursuant to the direction given by the Tribunal as an interim measure and with the appointment of the fifth Respondent, she lost her right to continue on the post. 7. So far as the appointment of the fifth Respondent is concerned, she was very much entitled to be appointed on the post in question being unmarried sister of the deceased Sri K.V. Prakash. This is clearly borne out from the Departmental Circular dated 4.10.1995 read with Circular dated 15 February, 1996 as reproduced in Swamy's Compilation of Service Rules for Postal ED Staff, 8th Edition, 2000. This is clearly borne out from the Departmental Circular dated 4.10.1995 read with Circular dated 15 February, 1996 as reproduced in Swamy's Compilation of Service Rules for Postal ED Staff, 8th Edition, 2000. It is also clear that the power to make appointment on compassionate ground is vested only in the Circle Compassionate Appointment Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Chief Post Master General. 8. In the present case, as is clearly evident from the statement of objections filed by the Assistant Post Master General (Staff) of Karnataka Circle, that on consideration of entire facts and circumstances placed before the Committee, a decision was taken by it to give appointment to the fifth Respondent on compassionate ground. It is not the case of the Petitioner that she is in law entitled to any appointment on compassionate ground because of the death of Sri K.V. Prakash, or that that the 5th Respondent is not so entitled. 9. Another submission which has been made is that, at that time the Committee had taken the decision of giving appointment to the 5th Respondent on compassionate ground the process for making regular appointment had already been commenced therefore by appointing the 5th Respondent, the same could not have been frustrated. It may be so, but nonetheless since the 5th Respondent was eligible for being appointed to the post on compassionate ground, the Department has not committed any illegality in granting appointment to her, because by mere initiation of the process for regular appointment no body can be said to have acquired a vested right to the Post. 10. For the above reasons, in our opinion, the order of the Tribunal warrants no interference. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.