JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order 30.4.2003 (Annex.13), by which his services have been terminated. 2. Petitioner's father late Shri P.R. Upadhaya died while is service on 29.4.94. The widow of the deceased employee moved an application on 23.6.94 for providing compassionate employment to the petitioner on attaining majority. Vide order dated 18.1.2000, petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk. Vide Annx. 10 dated 28/29.4.03, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why his services should to be terminated as the appointment given to him on compassionate ground on 17.1.2000 was in violation of rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Department of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short, "the Rules, 1996"). Petitioner filed the reply Annx. 11 on 30.4.2003. Vide impugned order Annx. 13 dated 30.4.2003, the services of the petitioner have been terminated. Hence this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is settled legal proposition that employment on compassionate ground is not a vested right as has repeatedly been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In fact, every appointment in public office must be made in strict adherence to the mandatory requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception to provide employment on compassionate ground has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the grieved family which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the family of the source of livelihood. The Competent Authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provisions 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. Thus, the consistent view taken by the Court had been that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, not being the vested right. 5. In Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. Thus, the consistent view taken by the Court had been that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, not being the vested right. 5. In Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Hakim Singh, 1998(1) SCT 511 (SC) : JT 1997(8) SC 332, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the object of providing for compassionate employment is only to relieve the family from financial hardship, therefore, an ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. 6. Similarly, in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar & Anrs., 1996(2) SCT 778 (SC) : (1996)8 SCC 23 , the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the applicants involved therein to apply for employment on compassionate ground "by giving full details of the family circumstances and the economic conditions." 7. In Director of Education (Secondary) & Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar & ors., 1998(2) SCT 791 (SC) : (1998)5 SCC 192 , the Apex Court has observed that the object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of the humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to meet both the ends, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased Government employee who may be eligible for such appointment. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & ors., 1998(4) SCT 221 (Raj.) : 1998(1) RLW 666, while dealing with the issue, observed that the object and purpose of providing the employment on compassionate ground is to redeem the family which has lost its bread-earner and not to create any new mode of recruitment for dependent of the Government servant and it cannot be claimed as a vested right. 9. 9. In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2000(4) SCT 323 (SC) : JT 2000(10) SC 156, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated that the purpose of the rules providing for compassionate employment is only to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner who had left the family in puniary (penury ?) and without any means of livelihood, but such an appointment cannot be held as if a reservation for the dependents of the deceased Government servant who died in harness. 10. In S. Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 9 SCC 458 , appellant's mother while in service of Municipality died when the appellant was 12/13 years old and his two brothers were already employed and his father was receiving pension. Ten years later the appellant applied for and was given compassionate appointment by the municipality. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the appellant's compassionate appointment was unwarranted and ratification thereof was rightly refused by the Government. Similarly, in State of H.P. & Anr. v. Jalli Devi, (1997)5 SCC 301 , the Apex Court held that where a son of the deceased employee was already in Government service, the High Court has erred in interfering with the denial of compassionate appointment by the department to another son of the same deceased employee. 11. In LIC of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar & Anr., 1994(2) SCT 548 (SC) : (1994)2 SCC 718 , the Supreme Court held that courts cannot order appointment on compassionate grounds de hors the provisions of statutory regulations and instructions. 12. In Divisional Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. K. Radha Krishna, 2002(1) SCT 204 (SC) : (2001)10 SCC 61 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "The settlement reveals that 10% vacancies on the post of Conductor are reserved in the Corporation for the children of the employees dying in harness or retiring from service on their competing 55 years, or 25 years service etc. subject to the condition mentioned therein. However, mere absence of specific mention that only one child is to be absorbed makes no difference. The normal reading of the settlement makes out that the object is to provide employment to one child of such employee to render economic help and stability to such family. Unless it is specifically provided, one cannot read more than one. However, mere absence of specific mention that only one child is to be absorbed makes no difference. The normal reading of the settlement makes out that the object is to provide employment to one child of such employee to render economic help and stability to such family. Unless it is specifically provided, one cannot read more than one. If it is read otherwise then it could also be for three, four or five children of the same employee. By such interpretation the very purpose and spirit of the circular and settlement would be lost." Thus, in a case where employment on compassionate ground can be refused, if other member of the family is already in service or family's financial position is good, the right cannot be held to be a vested right. 13. In the instant case, the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the grounds that (i) his appointment was made in violation of the provisions of rule 5 of the Rules, 1996; and (ii) he could not pass the requisite type test within the stipulated time. The elder brother of the petitioner, viz. Mr. Jaswant Upadhyaya is an employee of the respondent university since 23.9.1996 and as such, as per rule 5 of the Rules, 1996, appointment could not be given to the petitioner on compassionate ground. Rule 5 of the Rules, 1996 reads as under:- "Appointment subject to certain conditions:- When a Government servant dies while in service one of his/her defendants may be considered for appointment in Government service subject to the condition that employment under these Rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or at least one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/daughter of the deceased Government servant is already employed on regular basis under the Central/State Government or Statutory Board, Organisation/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/State Government at the time of death of the Government servant : Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself." Thus, Compassionate appointment is meant for a dependent of a serving Government employee dying harness to tide over the immediate impecunious condition of the family created by the employee's death. As per rule 10(3) of the Rules, 1956 the application for compassionate employment should be filed within 90 days from the date of death of the employee and it should be supported by an affidavit giving details of family members and the income of the family members from all the sources. In the instant case, in the affidavit Annx. R/2 filed by the family members of the deceased employee, including the petitioner, there is no mention regarding employment of petitioner's brother and the income of the family from all the sources. As such, the appointment of the petitioner was against the provisions of rule 5 of the Rules, 1996 and when this fact came to the knowledge of the respondent-Authority, the notice Annx.10 was sent to the petitioner asking him to submit his reply why his services should not be terminated. 14. The second ground for termination of petitioner's service is that he could not pass the requisite type test within the stipulated time. Had it been the sole ground for termination of petitioner then the grounds taken by the petitioner in the writ petition would have required consideration but it is not the sole ground for passing the impugned termination order. The main ground for termination of his services is that his appointment was de hors the Rules, 1996. It is settled proposition of law that if an appointment has been made de hors the rules then the competent authority is well within its power to correct the mistake after following the principles of natural justice. 15. Petitioner obtained the appointment on compassionate ground knowing it fully well that his elder brother Mr. Jaswant Upadhyaya was already in service. He is guilty of concealing this material fact. When this fact came to the notice of the respondents, the matter was considered by the Management Board in its meeting dated 21.4.2003 and on the report of the Board, the Vice Chancellor took decision to terminate the services of the petitioner. Petitioner was served with the notice Annx. 10 and ultimately his services stood terminated vide impugned order Annx. 13. 16. Moreso, the death of the deceased employee took pace on 29.4.94 and the petitioner was given compassionate employment on 17.1.2000 on his becoming major and acquiring requisite qualification. Petitioner was served with the notice Annx. 10 and ultimately his services stood terminated vide impugned order Annx. 13. 16. Moreso, the death of the deceased employee took pace on 29.4.94 and the petitioner was given compassionate employment on 17.1.2000 on his becoming major and acquiring requisite qualification. Thus, the respondents were also not justified in giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner because this does not come within the term "immediate financial hardship", particularly when the elder brother of the petitioner was already in the employment of the respondent university itself. It is pertinent to mention here that on 10.12.1999, an affidavit had been filed by all the member of the deceased family wherein they had deliberately concealed the material fact that one of the sons of the deceased employee, viz., Mr. Jaswant Upadhyaya, was already in the employment since 23.9.1996. Thus, while obtaining appointment, petitioner and other member of the family of the deceased deliberately concealed the material facts and obtained appointment by fraudulent means. It is settled proposition of law that when the facts, on which order is based, are undisputed, it is not necessary to hold any inquiry. Hence, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the impugned termination order Annex. 13. The writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******