ORDER The case of the petitioner is that the 1st petitioner is the son and the 2nd respondent-petitioner is the widow of the deceased V. Rajamanickam and that the said V. Rajamanickam died in harness on 3.1.1994, while he was working as an Assistant Teacher in the Government Elementary School at Manalur, Dharmapuri. The petitioners made a representation to the 3rd respondent dated 24.7.1996 for appointment on compassionate ground to the 1st petitioner and along with the said representation, the petitioners also enclosed Death Certificate of the deceased V. Rajamanickam, Legal Heir Certificate, No Objection letter from the eldest son of the said deceased to give appointment to the 1st petitioner and other certificates as required by the respondents. The 4th respondent by his communication dated 13.3.1998, called for certain particulars from the petitioners, which was also submitted by them. The 3rd respondent in his communication dated 9.3.1999 recommended the name of the 1st petitioner to the 2nd respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. The 3rd respondent also sent a reminder dated 26.6.2001 to the second respondent to pass order considering appointment of the 1st petitioner at the earliest, considering the family circumstances of the petitioners. The 4th respondent passed an order dated 25.2.2002, rejecting the request made by the petitioners on the sole ground that when qualified elder son is available, the request of the petitioners seeking appointment to the younger son namely the first petitioner, cannot be considered, which is impugned in this writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that appointment on compassionate ground is provided to save the family, which is suffering from poverty and that the elder son has given his No Objection letter on 24.7.1996 for appointment of the 1st petitioner and hence, the order of the 4th respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the sole ground that compassionate appointment could be made only to the elder son is untenable in law and prayed for quashing of the impugned order. 3. On the above said contentions, this Court heard the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 4. 3. On the above said contentions, this Court heard the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 4. In the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Others v. Paras Nath State of U.P. and Others v. Paras Nath State of U.P. and Others v. Paras Nath AIR 1998 SC 2612 : (1998) 2 SCC 412 : 1999-II-LLJ-454 the Honourable Supreme Court held that at p. 455 of LLJ: “5. The purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a Government Servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds, provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased Government Servant………” 5. 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 conditions of the family of the deceased, and it is only, if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment the family able (sic) to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The only ground which can justify compassionate ground is the penurious conditions of the deceased family, followed Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1995-I-LLJ-798. 6. It is seen from the impugned order that the penurious conditions of the petitioners’ family is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that necessary application seeking appointment on compassionate ground also filed by the petitioners in time in accordance with the Rules. The reasons assigned in the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent is when qualified elder son is available, seeking appointment on compassionate ground for the younger son namely the first petitioner is contrary to Government letter No. 4480/B1/89-3, Employment Department, dated 11.2.1988. The respondent has neither filed counter nor produced the copy of the said Government letter, dated 11.2.1988, for consideration of this Court. 7. The respondent has neither filed counter nor produced the copy of the said Government letter, dated 11.2.1988, for consideration of this Court. 7. The basic principles for granting employment on compassionate ground is in the nature of exception to the general Rule that appointment in the public service should be strictly made in open invitation of applications on merits. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the sudden crisis by giving employment to one of the dependants of the deceased employee. In this case, the elder has given No Objection letter for giving appointment to the first petitioner on compassionate ground, which was not taken into consideration by the respondents in a proper perspective while passing the impugned order, hence, this Court has no other option except to quash the impugned order and accordingly, it is quashed. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. The respondents are directed to give suitable post to the 1st petitioner as per the Rules, Regulations or Administrative instructions of the respondents/Department within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Writ petition allowed.