ORDER Petitioner claims to be daughter of one Sadasiva who was working as Group ‘c’ employee in the respondent 1-Bharath Sanchar NigamaLimited, who unfortunately died while still in service as on 18-10-1999. 2. It appears at that time the petitioner had indicated that she had no objection for giving appointment to her brother. The employer it appears had considered the case of the petitioner's brother for appointment on compassionate basis, but had turned down the request of the petitioner's brother as it was of the view that the petitioner was employed in a private company etc. 3. It appears thereafter the petitioner had sought for appointment on compassionate basis for herself which also came to be rejected by a communication dated 28-1-2002 and this writ petitioner questioned the same by filing Writ Petition No. 13393 of2002. 4. In terms of the order dated 26-7-2006, this Court was of the view that the order did not indicate any reason and therefore the matter was sent back to the employer to make it more explicit. 5. It is thereafter the present impugned order dated 21-10-2006 (copy at Annexure-F) is passed which is questioned in this writ petition. 6. Submission of Sri Raghavendra Achar, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that just because the petitioner had once given ‘No Objection Certificate’ in favour of her brother, for that reason she does not lose her right for seeking employment on compassionate basis and more particularly when at the time the petitioner had sought for appointment on compassionate basis, she had lost her job from her employer and considerations were different on this occasion; that the endorsement is not tenable; that it should be quashed and the matter sent back to the employer for consideration of petitioner's request for appointment on compassionate grounds etc., on the present state of affairs, which is that the writ petitioner is now not employed. 7. Unfortunately for the petitioner, providing employment on compassionate basis is not a right. 7. Unfortunately for the petitioner, providing employment on compassionate basis is not a right. It is an exceptional provision to help the dependent members of an employee to tide over the hardship, difficulty that they may face in the wake of sudden or premature death of the earning member of the family on whom such persons are dependent and to provide them an opportunity to earn their livelihood if one such eligible dependent can be appointed to any of the posts in terms of the scheme available in the employer's establishment. 8. If it was a fact that at the time when the petitioner's father died, there was no possibility of any member of the family getting employment on compassionate basis, it is not as though it can be reserved and worked out later particularly in favour of the petitioner who had issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ in favour of her brother for the precise reason that she was working earlier at that time and that can be sought for being enforced in terms of subsequent request seeking for employment for herself. In matters of this nature, where no right is involved and particularly when seven to eight years has already elapsed since the death of the employee, there is no scope for examining such causes in writ jurisdiction. 9. In matters of employment on compassionate basis, the scope for interference is only if the action on the part of the employer is totally contrary to the scheme or one of total arbitrariness. 10. I do not find either in the present case and it is therefore the present writ petition is dismissed as one not warranting interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.