S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) WHETHER a person seeking appointment on compassionate grounds has a legal right to be appointed in a post commensurate with his qualification is the question involved in this writ Petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner s father while working as Amin in A. P. Judicial Ministerial Service in the District Unit of Nellore, alleged to have filed an application for retirement on medical invalidation. He further prayed that his son i. e. , petitioner herein may be appointed in his place. He was permitted to retire on medical invalidation with effect from November 30, 1998. The petitioner s case for compassionate appointment, however was not considered whereafter he filed a Writ Petition being W. P. No. 24884 of 1999. The said writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage directing the direct Level Committee to consider the petitioner s request expeditiously. The petitioner claims that he possesses the requisite qualifications to hold the post of Amin. He was appointed on March 30, 2000 only as a process server. He accepted the said offer without any demur. However, his grievance is that after his appointment several other persons were appointed as Amins on compassionate grounds. He made representations to the 2nd respondent requesting to appoint him also as Amin on June 16, 2000 and December 23, 2000 but the same were not considered. The petitioner on the aforementioned ground alleges that he was discriminated. He further contends that the vacancies in the said category may arise in future and as such he may be considered against such future vacancies. ( 3 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated that at the relevant time there was no vacancy in the category of Amins. The said fact was brought to the notice of the High Court and in terms of the directions of this Court as contained in letter dated March 8, 2000, the petitioner was appointed as process server on March 30, 2000. Subsequently on June 30,2000 appointments on compassionate grounds had been made to the category of Amins, but, by that time the petitioner had already been appointed and as such there was no occasion to consider his case for appointment as Amin. Subsequently on June 30,2000 appointments on compassionate grounds had been made to the category of Amins, but, by that time the petitioner had already been appointed and as such there was no occasion to consider his case for appointment as Amin. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that in view of the fact that the post of Amin is a higher post, the petitioner being fully qualified to hold the post at the time he was considered for compassionate appointment, he should be directed to be promoted. ( 5 ) THE posts of Amins are governed by a. P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules whereas the Process Servers are governed by the A. P. Last Grade Service Rules. A person can be promoted to the post of Amin from the post of Process Server. But, before such promotion can be granted, all the persons who are eligible therefor must be considered. No person claiming appointment on compassionate ground can be permitted to say that only because he holds the requisite qualification, he should be appointed in a post commensurate with his qualification. He can be considered only in the post, which is vacant at the relevant time when his case is taken up for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. Once he is appointed to such post and accepts the same without any demur, he cannot subsequently be permitted to turn round and contend that he has been discriminated only because some other persons were appointed as amins on compassionate grounds, which were available at the time when they were appointed. ( 6 ) A compassionate appointment would depend upon the existence of vacancies available at the relevant time. It is well settled principle that the appointment on compassionate ground is made only by way of an exception to the constitutional mandate contained in Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. No individual has a right to claim that he be appointed to a particular post. In this connection, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar nagpalv. No individual has a right to claim that he be appointed to a particular post. In this connection, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar nagpalv. State of Haryana, 1994 (4) SCC 138 : 1995-I-LLJ-798, wherein the Apex Court dealing with the case of a dependent of a deceased Government servant observed:"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 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,. . . . . . 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. " ( 7 ) THE above observations made by the apex Court are more relevant in a case where a person is seeking compassionate appointment on the ground that the bread earner of the family had been permitted to retire on medical invalidation. ( 8 ) IN State of Haryana v, Hawa Singh, 1995 Supp. " ( 7 ) THE above observations made by the apex Court are more relevant in a case where a person is seeking compassionate appointment on the ground that the bread earner of the family had been permitted to retire on medical invalidation. ( 8 ) IN State of Haryana v, Hawa Singh, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 258 the Apex Court, while considering the entitlement of a son of incapacitated father, who retired from service on being found medically unfit for driving heavy vehicles, for compassionate appointment, set aside the direction of the High court for providing suitable job to one of his sons in a post commensurate with the educational qualifications possessed by the applicant, ( 9 ) IN Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, AIR 1997 SC 123 : 1996 (6) SCC 394 : 1997-I-LLJ-492, the Apex Court held that where no vacancies are available, candidate could not insist that he should be appointed on compassionate ground. ( 10 ) THE decision of the Apex Court in surya Kant Kadam v. State of Karnataka, 2001 air SCW 2386, on which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed strong reliance was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and evidently in terms of Article 142 of the Constitution of india. The appellant and respondents 3 and 4 therein were initially appointed as Clerks on compassionate grounds though they had applied for Sub-Inspector of Excise but subsequently after eight or nine years respondents 3 and 4 were promoted as sub-Inspector of Excise ignoring the case of the appellant who was appointed earlier to the respondents 3 and 4. Under those circumstances, the Apex Court directed the state Government to consider the case of the appellant for appointment as Sub-Inspector of excise prospectively. The Apex Court in the said case has noticed;"the learned counsel appearing for the State government on the other hand, contended that against the earlier order when the tribunal denied the relief considering the case of the appellant for the post of sub-Inspector of Excise, the appellant having not moved this Court, the same has become final and therefore should not be interfered with by this Court. There is some force in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the State. There is some force in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the State. " ( 11 ) THEREFORE, the decision in the above case was rendered in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case when the petitioner was appointed no posts of amins were available and therefore he was appointed in the post of Process Server, which existed at the relevant point of time. Merely because a higher post commensurate with the qualifications of the petitioner was not available at the relevant time the post cannot be kept vacant and having regard to the vacancy of process Server available at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was appointed as such. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the question of discrimination does not arise. ( 12 ) IN Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar AIR 1998 SC 2230 : 1998 (5) SCC 192 , the Apex Court held that compassionate appointment could not be insisted upon for a particular post. Construing the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness rules, 1974, it was held that if Class III posts are not available, the dependants would be appointed only to Class IV posts and set aside the directions of the High Court directing the authorities to appoint the persons to Class III posts and for creation of supernumerary Class iii post. Therefore, no direction could be issued to appoint the petitioner on a post commensurate with his qualifications. The scheme of compassionate appointment being a welfare scheme which is an exception to Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India cannot be farther extended thereby interfering with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment against the posts which would have been available to them but for the provisions for compassionate appointment. No regal right as such has been conferred on a dependant member of the family to claim as a matter of right that he is entitled to be appointed on a post commensurate with his qualifications. Further, recently, a Full Bench of this Court in w. P. No. 13489 of 2000 dated October 12, 2001 and batch held that the policy decision of the State to permit the employees to opt for retirement on medical invalidation and consequent appointment of their dependants on compassionate grounds is violative of Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India. Further, recently, a Full Bench of this Court in w. P. No. 13489 of 2000 dated October 12, 2001 and batch held that the policy decision of the State to permit the employees to opt for retirement on medical invalidation and consequent appointment of their dependants on compassionate grounds is violative of Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to claim that he be appointed in a post held by his father or on a post commensurate with his qualifications. ( 13 ) IN LIC v. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar, air 1994 SC 2148 : 1994 (2) SCC 718 : 1994-II-LLJ-173 the Apex Court observed that appointment on compassionate ground has to be made in accordance with law, relevant rules and regulations that have been framed by the authority in that regard and the Court cannot direct appointments to be made contrary to statutory instructions. No departure should be made from the policy laid down by the employer regarding compassionate appointment. ( 14 ) WE are of the view that the petitioner s case for promotion cannot be considered at this stage. In any event, as noticed hereinbefore such consideration must be made upon taking into consideration the case of all eligible candidates. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.