Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the Standing Order dated 18.2.1994 issued by the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Board) providing inter alia that the adopted son or daughter will not be treated as dependent of the deceased employee for the purpose of giving appointment on compassionate ground as well as the order dated 16.6.2001 whereby the prayer for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground has been rejected on the said ground. The aforesaid two orders have been annexed as Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ application. 2. The matter was placed before a learned Single Judge of this court who after having noticed that the point raised in the case is of general importance referred the matter to the Division Bench and that is how, it has been placed before us for adjudication. 3. Late Upendra Tiwari was working as unskilled Khalasi in the Electricity Supply Division, Kudra. He was married to Most. Gangabrati Kuer. They had no issue. According to the petitioner, late Upendra Tiwari and his wife desired to adopt him being one of the sons of Mahendra Nath Tiwari, brother of Upendra Tiwari and in the year 1994, in presence of the friends, relatives and Purohit, after performing the religious rituals, the petitioner who at that time was 13 years of age, was adopted by the said Upendra Tiwari and his wife and since then he started living with them as natural born son and in the service record he was also shown as a nominee of the said Upendra Tiwari. On 1.12.1998, Upendra Tiwari died leaving behind his widow and the petitioner as a adopted son. Thereafter his widow felt need of a registered adoption deed for succession and other purposes and accordingly, she executed adoption deed dated 30.9.2000 mentioning about the earlier adoption haying taken place in the year 1994. 4. After the death of Upendra Tiwari, the petitioner filed an application before the Board for compasisionate appointment on the ground that the family has little resources to maintain themselves. The said application was forwarded by the concerned officials and thereafter the matter was placed before the Board which by the impugned order dated 16.6.2001 rejected the prayer on the ground that in terms of the Standing Order of the Board adopted son cannot be appointed on compassionate ground. 5. The said application was forwarded by the concerned officials and thereafter the matter was placed before the Board which by the impugned order dated 16.6.2001 rejected the prayer on the ground that in terms of the Standing Order of the Board adopted son cannot be appointed on compassionate ground. 5. The stand of the petitioner is that the aforesaid decision of the Board not to treat the adopted son or daughter as one of the dependents of the deceased employee for the purpose of compassionate appointment is arbitrary and is in breach of the provision of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, the Act) which provides that once the adoption has taken place, adopted son becomes member of the adoptive family for all intents and purposes. The Board has framed a regulation in exercise of power under section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 which is known as Bihar State Electricity Board Service Regulation, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation). The members of the family has been defined under the said Regulation for the purpose of preference in the matter of giving employment on compassionate ground which includes even adopted son and daughter of an employee. The said regulation is arbitrarily not made applicable in the case of Class III and Class IV employees though the same is applicable to the officers of the Board and if the said provision would have been made applicable by issuance of appropriate notification, the petitioner would have got the benefit of the same and as such a prayer has also been made to issue a direction to issue appropriate notification for application of the said regulation in the case of Class III and IV employees also. 6. The stand of the Board is that the policy decision of the Board with regard to compassionate appointment has been laid down in the Standing Order being S.O. No. 756 dated 18.2.1994 (Annexure-1 to the writ application) which provides employment to the dependent of the deceased employee which are husband/wife, son, unmarried daughter and widowed daughter-in-law and adopted son or daughter are not included as dependent of the deceased employee and as such the petitioner cannot claim appointment on the ground of being adopted son of the deceased employee. The Board has also challenged the adoption. The Board has also challenged the adoption. It is stated that the document has been executed after the death of Upendra Tiwari, specially when the same is not a registered document as required under the provisions of the Act. The provision of Act cannot be made applicable for claiming compassionate appointment when the same is not permissible in terms of the rules and regulations governing the appointment on compassionate ground. It is stated that the officers are governed by Regulation of 1976 and the workmen are governed by the Certified Standing Order of the Board. Different rules and regulations governing two class of employees have been provided and no direction can be issued by the Court to enforce the provision of law which has been made with regard to officers of the Board. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after the adoption under the provisions of the Act, adopted son is transferred to adoptive family and becomes members of that family for all intents and purposes and he acquires the same right which a natural son has and in that view of the matter, the Board cannot discriminate between the natural son and the adopted son for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground and the Standing Order of the Board to that effect is arbitrary and impermissible in law. In support of the said submission the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kamal Rajan vs. The State of Bihar & others, reported in 1994 (2) PLJR 536. He also submitted that this Court should issue a direction to implement the provision of the Regulation with regard to Class III and Class IV employees also so that the adopted son also gets the benefit as the natural son has in the matter of employment. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Board on the other hand submitted compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It being exception to the rule of equality in the matter of appointment as enshrined in the Constitution it is governed by the rules and policy of the employer which are framed after taking into consideration the financial condition and other relevant considerations. It being exception to the rule of equality in the matter of appointment as enshrined in the Constitution it is governed by the rules and policy of the employer which are framed after taking into consideration the financial condition and other relevant considerations. The Board after consideration of the relevant consideration has framed a policy that the adopted son/daughter will not be treated as a dependent of the deceased employee for compassionate appointment and the said policy being based on reasonable consideration, the Court cannot issue a direction contrary to the policy decision. The provisions of the Act cannot be taken recourse to for the purpose of giving employment on compassionate ground de hors the rules and regulations governing the said policy. The Court cannot issue a direction to enforce the provisions of the regulations as it is for the Board to consider as to which provision is made applicable from which date and in respect of which of the employees. In support of the submission, learned counsel appearing for the Board relied upon several judgment which will be referred to at appropriate places. 9. The Constitution guarantees equality in the matter of employment and all persons similarly situated and having requisite qualification for a particular post should be afforded an equal opportunity in the matter of employment. Any deviation from the observance of the equality clause will make the employment unconstitutional and impermissible in law. The Apex Court has however made exception to the said rule and permitted the compassionate appointment to meet the immediate hardship to the family due to untimely death of a bread earner purely on humanitarian consideration and for the ends of justice. However, mere death of an employee does not entitle the family to get the compassionate appointment. 10. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 138, the Apex Court in paragraph 2 of the judgment held as follows; As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of application and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Government nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Government nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. 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 for 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. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. 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. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned." 11. Thus, the very purpose of the compassionate appointment is to achieve the particular object to mitigate the immediate hardship. The appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of a course and the same is governed by rules and regulations governing the appointment on compassionate ground and the employer may, taking into consideration its financial position, absence of vacancy and other relevant considerations, not provide for compassionate appointment or it may provide for compassionate appointment in terms of the rules and regulations for such appointment. If the employer has framed a rule governing the compassionate appointment and the said rule is not arbitrary or unreasonable, then the Court cannot compel the employer to make the appointment de hors the rules. 12. In the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Paras Nath, reported in (1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 412, the Apex Court held that appointments on compassionate ground are permissible provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. 13. The same view was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs) and another, reported in (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 718, wherein it was held that the courts should endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. Disregardful of law, however, hard the case may be, should never be done, if there are rules and regulations. The Court has considered the aforesaid provision and cannot give appointment on compassionate ground by keeping aside the statutory provision. 14. Disregardful of law, however, hard the case may be, should never be done, if there are rules and regulations. The Court has considered the aforesaid provision and cannot give appointment on compassionate ground by keeping aside the statutory provision. 14. In the present case as stated above, Annexure-1 to the writ application is the Standing Order dated 38.2.1994 which contains a policy with regard to giving employment in Class III and Class IV posts on compassionate ground in the case of death of a deceased employee. The dependents have been described in clause (d) of the said Standing Order which includes wife/husband, son, unmarried daughter and widowed daughter-in-law in order of preference. It is specifically mentioned that the adopted son and daughter will not be treated as a dependent for the purpose of giving employment on compassionate ground. Thus, the rule clearly debars the adopted son and adopted daughter for claiming appointment on compassionate ground. 15. A similar circular of the Board dated 21.4.1994 was subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Bihar Rajya Vidyut Board vs. Chhathu Ram and others, reported in (1999) 5 Supreme Court Cases 673 wherein appointment was claimed on the basis of adoption and the same was allowed by this Court. The Apex Court negatived the claim of the respondent in the said appeal on two grounds; firstly that the adoption was not proved and secondly that by Standing Order dated 21.4.1993, the Board has withdrawn the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground in the case of adopted son. Thus, the policy of the Board not giving appointment on compassionate ground to the adopted son was found to be valid by the Apex Court in the said case. 16. So far the case of Kamal Ranjan is concerned, that was a case with regard to circular issued by the State Government and in that case Division Bench of this Court held that once the adoption is made, the adopted son acquires the status of a natural son and any decision debarring him from claiming appointment on compassionate ground will be arbitrary and illegal. As the said judgment has been rendered by a Co-ordinate bench we would have referred the matter to a larger bench but there is no need to do so for two reasons; firstly that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case as stated above has negatived the claim for appointment on an earlier circular withdrawing the benefit of compassionate appointment to an adopted son and secondly the judgment was rendered with regard to circular issued by the State Government in a different situation. This apart, the appointment on compassionate ground is governed by rules and regulations and the personal law with regard to conferment of rights on adopted son cannot be taken recourse to or apply for the purpose of deciding the question of employment on compassionate ground which is made as per the rules to meet the particular situation. 17. So far as the case of the petitioner for issuance of a direction to implement the provisions of regulations in the case of Class III and Class IV employees is concerned, there are two reasons to reject the aforesaid prayer. Firstly, that no mandamus can be issued for enforcement of a provision which has to be done by the concerned authority after taking into account the relevant consideration and secondly that the provision relied by the petitioner does not deal with compassionate appointment. 18. Accordingly, there is no merit in this application and the same is dismissed. R.S.Garg, J. 19 I agree.