JUDGMENT Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner's prayer to provide compassionate appointment has been rejected by respondent No.3 as per order P-8 dated 19.10.2004 on the ground that death took place on 31.1.1991 of deceased employee. Policy provides that maximum within a period of 7 years from the date of death of employee compassionate appointment can be considered. As death took place in the year 1991, by now 14 years have passed. In such circumstances I do not find that any extraordinary situation is made out for providing the immediate help which is the very purpose of giving compassionate appointment. The very object of providing compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to bereaved family. Matter is not covered within the policy. After seven years, appointment cannot be made on compassionate basis. The policy framed is just and reasonable and in tune with the various decisions of the Apex Court. In Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Pramoda Dei [ (1997) 11 SCC 390 ], the Apex Court has held that: "mere death of the employee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment. The Apex Court has further laid down that rehabilitation appointment has not to be given in all cases where it become due because of death of an employee in harness or by his permanent disability. The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis." In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar [ (2000) 7 SCC 192 ], the Apex Court has laid down that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to 'tide over sudden crisis' resulting due to death of the breadearner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [ (1994) 4 SCC 138 ], the Apex Court has laid down that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as of right. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down be the rules for the post. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down be 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 interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants 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 dependants 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. In S. Mohan v. Government of Tamil Nadu [ (1998) 9 SCC 485 ], the Apex Court has laid down that object of compassionate appointment is to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after crisis is over. In Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar [ (1996) 1 SCC 301 ], the Apex Court has laid down that the very object of appointment of a dependant of the deceased employee who dies in harness is to relieve unexpected 'immediate hardship and distress' caused to the family by the sudden demise of the earning member of the family. The Apex Court has held that although a minor son (4 years old) at the time of his father's death was not entitled to claim compassionate appointment 'after long 23 years'. It has been further held by the Apex Court that object of the appointment is to relieve immediate hardship and stress, such consideration 'cannot be kept binding' for years. The Apex Court has held that although a minor son (4 years old) at the time of his father's death was not entitled to claim compassionate appointment 'after long 23 years'. It has been further held by the Apex Court that object of the appointment is to relieve immediate hardship and stress, such consideration 'cannot be kept binding' for years. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [ (1994) 4 SCC 138 ], the Apex Court has held that compassionate appointment 'cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.' The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. The Apex Court has further laid down that it must be remembered in the matter of compassionate appointment 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. In Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar [ (1996) 8 SCC 23 ] where the sons, on attaining majority' 12 and 13 long years' after the event, claimed compassionate appointment, though there was no time limit for making such a claim at the time of death of deceased employee, the claims were held to be unsustainable. In Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi [ (2002) 2 LLJ 773 ], the Apex Court has laid down that application for employment on compassionate ground made after 'eight years' after the employee's death cannot be said to be one to meet the immediate financial need of the family. In Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi [ (2002) 2 LLJ 773 ], the Apex Court has laid down that application for employment on compassionate ground made after 'eight years' after the employee's death cannot be said to be one to meet the immediate financial need of the family. In State of U.P. v. Paras Nath [ (1998) 2 SCC 412 ], the Apex Court has laid down that when for the first time the son had made an application after 17 years' of the employee's death, on such belated application son was held not entitled to any relief as the object is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employees on account of his unexpected death. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time. In the instant case, in view of the above discussion I find no merit in the petition. Writ Petition is dismissed.