RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition a prayer of mandamus has been made for considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on suitable post or to show cause before this Court. 3. Facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner Ex. C. E. Ram Sahai No. 8-415 Lakhar was medically boarded out on 8- 11-1989. He was a patient of tuberculosis. 4. On being boarded out Ram Sahai requested and approached the authorities by application dated 2-8- 1992 for giving appointment to his son on compassionate ground as the family was in indigent circumstances. In response a letter dated 18-8-1991 was received from the office of Air Force Record Office, New Delhi directing him to complete the formalities. It is alleged that the formalities were completed, but, it appears from the record that he was further directed by letter dated 30-10-1992 issued from 35 Squadron Air Force C/o 56 APO asking for further information and completing further formalities. According to the petitioner on receipt of the letter aforesaid, further formalities were completed but even then he received a letter dated 29-10-1992 for further rectification an further formalities as per Annexure-6. Vide this letter following information or documents were required to be submitted by the petitioner: " (a) Performa regarding employment of Government servant of dependents of Government servants retired on medical ground. , 3 copies (b) Application for the candidate for employment. , 3 copies (c) No objection certificate by his mother. , 3 copies (d) Indigent circumstances certificate by Gazetted Officer/tehsildar. " (e) Certificate in support of date of birth of the candidate. , (f) Photostat copy of the letter retired on Medical grounds in/r/o NC (E) Ram Sahai, (g) Character certificate of the candidate, (h) Affidavit from Court regarding movable/immovable property. , (j) Photostat copies of all payments regarding gratuity,, AFPP Fund,, AFGIS,, LIC polices and all other payments,, which have been made to NC (E) Ram Sahai father of the candidate. , (k) CTC of 27 Pands Unit letter No. 27pm/c100301 Prov dated 02 Dec. 92 regarding movable/immovable property of NC (E) Ram Sahai" for further necessary action. , 5. Thereafter the petitioner received a letter dated 24-9-1993 informing him about rejection of his application for appointment on compassionate ground. , (k) CTC of 27 Pands Unit letter No. 27pm/c100301 Prov dated 02 Dec. 92 regarding movable/immovable property of NC (E) Ram Sahai" for further necessary action. , 5. Thereafter the petitioner received a letter dated 24-9-1993 informing him about rejection of his application for appointment on compassionate ground. The Petitioner received a letter dated 30-10- 1994 from Air stating that correspondence is in progress and he will be informed accordingly. 6. It is alleged by the petitioner that the correspondence went on between the Petitioners father and the authorities and various letter dated 17-2-1997, 11-4-1997 and 12-6-1997 were sent by his father to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, but he did not receive any further information and as such a legal notice dated 11-3- 1998 was sent to the Respondents. 7. In the meantime the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 27-3-1996 that his case was ultimately rejected by the officers during quarter ending December, 1993, and he could not be accommodated as there was a large number of other candidates seeking compassionate appointment under similar circumstances against existing vacancies, which were very few. In the letter dated 27-3-1996 it was mentioned that the Petitioners father was getting Rs. 800/- and was also having one cosmetic shop and land having income of Rs. 700/- and Rs. 604/- per month indicating that the Petitioners family and father were not in indigent circumstances. 8. It is submitted that on behalf of the Petitioner that the action of the respondents was not fair and he has been arbitrarily and illegally deprived from appointment on compassionate ground/inspite being in indigent circumstances. He further submits that a Corporator of Nagar Nigam (Ward No. 1) certified that the father of the petitioner is not having any land and that the District Magistrate, Bareilly had issued solvency certificate of Rs. 10,000/- and more without any information and as such his case was not considered properly by Head Quarter, New Delhi. It is also submitted that delay has been mentioned ignoring the earlier correspondence of the petitioner and even he was not taken in service considering tuberculosis of his father and the fact that he had made continuous effort and there was no lapse as all the formalities were completed as asked by the Respondents. 9. It is also submitted that delay has been mentioned ignoring the earlier correspondence of the petitioner and even he was not taken in service considering tuberculosis of his father and the fact that he had made continuous effort and there was no lapse as all the formalities were completed as asked by the Respondents. 9. Lastly, it is submitted that petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and he has been deprived arbitrarily without considering the quota and there was nothing lacking on his part when his father was medically boarded out. 10. The care setout by the Respondents is that the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was processed officially by the Head Quarter, Central Area Command for considering him on Group D post. Vide letter dated 18th August, 1992 the petitioner was requested to complete certain formalities and attach his educational certificates. Date of Birth Certificate and Scheduled Caste Certificate for considering him for appointment under indigent circumstances. These were submitted by the petitioner, however, vide letter dated 30-10-1992 he was again asked to clarify certain observations/objections raised by the Head Quarter and he was informed that the informations sought were necessary as per the employment policy. Though the petitioner completed some of the formalities but documents, certificates regarding employment were again not attached with the application. The counsel for the respondents submits that the case of the petitioner was sympathetically considered by the Headquarter, Central Area Command and his case is for employment under the Dying Harness Rules as the petitioner has a cosmetic shop as well as land and his income is about Rs. 1300/- per month approximately, apart from pension of Rs. 800/- plus D. A. to his father at the relevant time and the family was not in indigent circumstances. He further submits that the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was considered three times by the Board through Headquarter CAC in 1993, but he could not be accommodated. It is submitted that the application of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was not rejected arbitrarily, as alleged and that as per the policy for appointment on compassionate ground are made where the family is in the most indigent circumstance. 11. The procedure for appointment in the Air Force on compassionate ground has been given in Para 5 of the counter- affidavit, which is as under: "5. 11. The procedure for appointment in the Air Force on compassionate ground has been given in Para 5 of the counter- affidavit, which is as under: "5. That, at the outset, it is pertinent to setout the manner and procedure by which compassionate appointment are made in the Air Force. That after receiving the complete application for compassionate appointment from the unit they are considered quarterly in terms of the relevant instruction on the subject. The criteria for selection of candidates for compassionate appointment in the comparative financial status interest between the applicants based on the assets left behind by the deceased employee as against the liabilities. On such a consideration being made, the most deserving cases are granted compassionate appointment against the vacancies available. The cases of the applicants who cannot be given appointment in one quarter due to limited vacancies are considered again in the subsequent two quarters for appointment against the vacancies available. It is only when after the aforesaid three considerations are given to each cases, that the case of those applicants who can not be offered appointments, are finally closed. The rationale behind this system of progressive elimination of cases on the basis of comparative requirement is that more recent cases which may be in need of immediate financial assistance may be considered for the vacancies available. " 12. Information to the Petitioners father about rejection of the application vide letter dated 10-1-1997 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) was also given vide letter dated 10th January, 1997 of Air Headquarters. The relevant extract reads thus: "2. Your requested has been examined and it is observed that you have been medically boarded out from service in the year 1985 and the request for compassionate appointment is made only after a lapse of 11 years, as such your case will not deserve, sympathetic consideration at this beleated stage, as the purpose of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to a family put under indigent circumstances due to the untimely death or medical invalidment of its sole bread-earning member. " 13. The object of compassionate appointment is to grant immediate financial aid to the family of the deceased, which is in dire need of moral and financial support. It suddenly finds itself in certain difficulties due to the death of bread-earner. There are no statutory provisions to provide hundred per cent employment. " 13. The object of compassionate appointment is to grant immediate financial aid to the family of the deceased, which is in dire need of moral and financial support. It suddenly finds itself in certain difficulties due to the death of bread-earner. There are no statutory provisions to provide hundred per cent employment. The compassionate appointment is not given as a matter of right, but is an exception considering various factors, i. e. distress of the family, its financial condition and other liabilities, etc. . Comparative need of other deserving families in indigent circumstances has also to be considered by the authorities. It has not been denied by the petitioner that his application was not sympathetically considered at least three times by the Board in the quarter ending December 1993 as per relevant rules. Petitioners father was medically boarded out in the year 1985. An application for compassionate appointment was moved by the son after about 11 years and the family has been able to pull on up the year 2003. Moreover, the family was found not to be in indigent circumstances by the authorities as a matter of fact. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case the rejection of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was not arbitrary, but he was given a fair treatment by the authorities. The petitioner has failed to establish that the family of his father was in indigent circumstances or there was any procedural irregularity in consideration of his application. There is no illegality or infirmity in the actions of the Respondents and the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed. .