ORDER 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has challenges the order dated 5-4-2000 passed by the M.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1461/1999 rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 3. One Antram Singh died in the year 1976 while he was employed as Vaccinator under the employment of the respondents, leaving his widow and daughter named Gunamala who was aged about 6 years, at the time of death of Antram Singh. The widow of the deceased Antram Singh did not seek her appointment on compassionate ground as she was not interested at that time. Her daughter was minor and after attaining majority she herself did not seek the appointment. She married and thereafter son-in-law wanted appointment on compassionate ground. As the matter was filed before the Tribunal earlier and as per order Annexure A-13, the appointment was refused. 4. In O.A. No. 1460/1997 notices were issued but return in the ease had not been field despite numerous opportunities provided to the respondents for filing the same. The application was disposed of with direction to consider the representation. The petitioner made representation. Thereafter after considering the same the order was passed on 20-5-1999 rejecting the prayer for compassionate ground. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal. The claim was denied by the State. The State filed return and Administrative Tribunal has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record and the policy. The Tribunal has also considered the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpul Vs. State of Haryana, 1994 SCC (L & S) 930. The Tribunal has quoted the relevant paragraphs of the judgment. Paragraph 5 of the judgment, the judgment paras have been quoted and in Paragraph 6 of the judgment the Tribunal has quoted extract from policy of State. Under the facts and circumstances where the widow did not seek and the daughter after attaining majority also did not seek appointment on compassionate ground. After marriage the son-in-law of the petitioner as a nominee sought the appointment on compassionate ground. The compassionate appointment is for immediate relief of the deceased family whereas there is delay and latches on her part also does not entitle her nominating any such near relative for seeking appointment on compassionate ground. After marriage the son-in-law of the petitioner as a nominee sought the appointment on compassionate ground. The compassionate appointment is for immediate relief of the deceased family whereas there is delay and latches on her part also does not entitle her nominating any such near relative for seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Compassionate appointment is an urgent need of the distressed family, it is not an alternative mode of recruitment. It is granted with a specified purpose taking into account the urgency of the situation. The decision of this Court decided on 11-10-1999 in W.P. No. 1548 of 1999, Jafar Ahmnd Vs. State of M.R, reported in 2000(1) M.P.H.T. 587 = 2000(1) M.P.W.N. Note-62, has taken the same view. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on record and also the judgment referred above, in our opinion, no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed. 6. Writ Petition dismissed.