S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the son of one Venktata Subbaiah who was in the Ministerial services of the judiciary. Late venkata Subbaiah died on 15-5-1984 in harness. It appears that at the time of death of the father, the petitioner was minor and admittedly, attained majority on 12-6-1992. The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate ground by making an application on 24-8-1992. The petitioner s claim was rejected by the respondents. The validity of the same is assailed in this writ petition. ( 2 ) SECONDLY, the petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the action of the respondents in denying reservation to the petitioner who is also a physically handicapped person in the vacancies notified vide notification dated 4-10-1996 in terms of Rule 22 (ii) of the A. P State and subordinate Service Rules as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider and appoint him in any suitable post in the A. P. Judicial ministerial Services such as Typist, Junior assistant, Copyist, Record Assistant etc. ( 3 ) ADVERTING to the first claim of the petitioner, suffice it to state that under the Rules governing appointment on compassionate grounds, the dependents of the deceased employee who are minor at the time of death of the employee can seek appointment on compassionate ground only if such dependents attain majority within a period of two years from the date of the death. In the instant case, the petitioner attained the majority after a long time of more than eight years. There is no controversy on facts. The Supreme Court in state of H. P. v. Jafli Devi, 1997 (5) SCC 301 , opined that in considering the claims of the persons for appointment on compassionate grounds, the policy laid down by the employer or the Regulations governing the appointment should not be departed from by the High Court. Since the petitioner does not acquire a right to be considered for appointment under compassionate grounds under the existing rules, non-consideration of his case by the respondents cannot be faulted. This takes us to the alternative claim of the petitioner. Since the petitioner does not acquire a right to be considered for appointment under compassionate grounds under the existing rules, non-consideration of his case by the respondents cannot be faulted. This takes us to the alternative claim of the petitioner. Although the petitioner has not taken any ground on the basis of the provisions of the persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short the Act ), to claim reservation to the extent of 3%, it is appropriate to mention that in terms of the above Act, enacted by the indian Parliament, under Section 33 of the Act, every appropriate Government is obliged to provide certain percentage of vacancies not less than 3% for class of persons with disability. Section 33 reads:"33. Reservation of Posts :every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from, (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment; (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy; in the posts identified for each disability: provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section. " ( 4 ) OF course as could be seen from the proviso, it is open to the appropriate government by issuing necessary notification under the proviso exempting any establishment from the provisions of section 33 of the Act. ( 5 ) BE that as it may, even assuming that under the proviso the State Government has not issued any notification exempting the judicial service from the obligation of Section 33 of the Act, even then the petitioner is not entitled to the relief. We say this because in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is pointed out that the application filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the notification dated 4-10-1996 was found to be defective and the same was rejected at the time of scrutiny of the application by the district Selection Committee. The said action of the District Selection Committee was not assailed by the petitioner in appropriate legal proceedings at the relevant point of time. The said action of the District Selection Committee was not assailed by the petitioner in appropriate legal proceedings at the relevant point of time. ( 6 ) IN that view of the matter at this distance of time, it is not possible to issue any direction to consider the application of the petitioner for the post which is found to be defective. ( 7 ) IN the result, the writ petition is dismissed.