( 1 ) SINCE issues arising for our consideration in these two appeals are similar, they are being disposed of by this common order and judgment. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the two writ petitions by common order and judgment dated 02. 5. 2007, out of which these appeals have arisen. ( 2 ) BOTH the appellants herein filed their respective writ petitions against the order dated 10. 4. 2006 passed by the Delhi Jal Board rejecting their claim for appointment on compassionate grounds with a further direction that the appellants should be given appointment on compassionate ground. ( 3 ) FATHER of both the appellants was working with the Delhi Jal Board and died in harness on the same day. e. 23rd October, 2001. Thereafter, the appellants herein applied for appointment on compassionate ground. However, the applications filed by the appellants were rejected on the ground that both the appellants have no liability, have received sufficient terminal dues and pension etc. Claim of Mr. Nanak Chand was also rejected on the ground that he owes a residential house. It was, therefore, held by the respondents that it is not a case which justifies appointment on compassionate ground. ( 4 ) THE appellants herein approached this Court earlier also, whereupon this Court directed that their cases should be considered for compassionate appointment under the schedule caste quota. The respondents re-considered the same from the aforesaid angle also but held that the appellants cannot be appointed as there were no vacancies to accommodate them. It was held that requests of many other more deserving persons were pending and awaiting appointment. ( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge had considered the facts of the present cases in light of the ratio of various decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court and on appreciation thereof given conclusive findings that the decision arrived at by the competent authority. e. the Screening Committee does not call for any interference and was not vitiated. ( 6 ) BE that as it may, upon consideration of the records placed before us, we find that both the appellants were married having children at the time of death of their father. They have received the retirement benefits and one of them has his own house. The widow has received pensionary benefits and also family pension. ( 6 ) BE that as it may, upon consideration of the records placed before us, we find that both the appellants were married having children at the time of death of their father. They have received the retirement benefits and one of them has his own house. The widow has received pensionary benefits and also family pension. The Screening Committee had taken into consideration the relevant factors before rejecting the claims. Non-availability of any vacancy to accommodate the appellants was also one of the reasons for rejecting the claims of the appellants. ( 7 ) WE find no reason to interfere with the aforesaid findings. There is nothing on record to substantiate and hold that the appellants faced sudden financial crisis due to the death of their father and they did not have sufficient means to tide over the same. Seven years have passed by and they have not suffered any financial difficulties for the last six years. Compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment. ( 8 ) THE appeals have no merit and are dismissed. ( 9 ) IF the appellants submit their applications as against advertisements issued by the respondents in due course, their cases shall be considered in accordance with law by the respondents.