Judgment Harbans Lal, J.- Shri Chhotu Ram, who was Darban (Class IV in Group D) in the Geological Survey of India died on 12.06.1993. An application for appointment to his son on compassionate grounds was filed before the concerned authorities in the same year by Smt. Laxmi Devi, the wife of the deceased. Since the post was not available, he was not given the appointment. Against this inaction, the petitioner filed an Original Application being OA No. 245/03. The petitioner has studied upto 8th standard and belongs to OBC category. 2. After filing of the OA, he was called for interview on 210.1994 vide order dated 110.1994. The petitioner was informed that appointment shall be given to him on availability of vacancy. It is submitted by the petitioner that a similarly situated person, respondent No. 3, was given appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner submitted representation to the respondents and also gave a notice for demand of justice. 3. The Original Application of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that he had not approached the authorities with clean hands and had tried to grab the post by hook or by crook and he also had 30 Bighas of land and hence it is not a case of the family of the deceased being in financial crisis. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. It has been held by the Honble Apex Court in a catena of cases that while considering the candidature of applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds, the department must examine his financial status and position as to whether the family of the deceased employee needs any help to survive or their exist any indigent circumstances in the family of the deceased employee who was the sole bread earner. 6. In Phool Kumari vs. Union of India & Ors., -1993 (23) ATC 548, it has been held that the main object of compassionate appointment is related to the need for immediate assistance to the family particularly in distress. 7. 6. In Phool Kumari vs. Union of India & Ors., -1993 (23) ATC 548, it has been held that the main object of compassionate appointment is related to the need for immediate assistance to the family particularly in distress. 7. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, - 1994 (4) SCC 138 , it has been observed that the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is 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. 8. In Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, 1996 (1) SCC 301 , the Honble Apex Court has observed that the very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employee who died in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family. 9. In Director of Education & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., - 1998 (5) SCC 192 , the Apex Court has held 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 because unless such source of livelihood is provided, the family is not able to make both ends meet. 10. The Honble Apex Court has pointed out in Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. vs. Hakim Singh, - JT 1997 (8) SC 332, that the Rule of appointment in public service is that it should be on merits and through open invitation which is the normal route to get into public employment every rule may have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the aforesaid general rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one such exception, relief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependent in an available vacancy. The object of this beneficient provision is to give succour to the family which has been suddenly plugged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole bread earner. It has been made clear that such relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. 11. The object of this beneficient provision is to give succour to the family which has been suddenly plugged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole bread earner. It has been made clear that such relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. 11. Thus, it is too well settled that the appointment on compassionate grounds are given to tide over the immediate financial crisis in the family due to the sudden and unexpected demise of its sole bread earner and it is not an alternative mode of seeking employment to public services. It is not a right but is only a concession. 12. In the instant case, as has been held by the Tribunal and in our view rightly so, the deceased owned agricultural land fetching annual income of Rs. 12,000/-besides pension to the widow of the deceased employee. Admittedly, the said agricultural land has come into the hands of surviving members of the family. These facts were concealed and suppressed while seeking appointment for the petitioner and Rakesh Dhabi who has been given appointment on compassionate grounds in preference to the petitioner has been found by the department to be more deserving than the petitioner. Nothing could be pointed out to show that the claim of the petitioner was in any way better and more deserving than that of non-petitioner No. 3 Rakesh Dhabi. 10.13. We, therefore, find no infirmity or illegality in the well reasoned and well considered order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur so as to call for any interference by this Court. 114. Consequently, this petition being absolutely devoid of merit and substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.