Judgment Navin Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the State. 2. The mother of the petitioner was deceased while in service on 23.3.1983. The petitioner was a minor. He applied for compassionate appointment in the year 1988, on his attaining majority as alleged. The application came to be rejected by an order dated 23.12.1988 as the same was not made within the prescribed period under the Rules as it then existed and which provided a time limit of two years from the date of death for such application. 3. The petitioner did not assail the rejection order before any court of law. The order attained finality. Presumably the petitioner did not do so because his father was receiving family pension on account of the services rendered by his mother. The petitioner then re-applied in November, 1990 when the present order impugned dated 4.6.1991 came to be passed. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to make out a fresh cause of action from the order of rejection dated 4.6.1991. 5. This Court finds that the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cane to be passed as far back as on 2312.1988. He did not questions the same and allowed it to attain finality. The application for compassionate appointment on which the present writ application is based has been made nearly seven years after the death of his mother. 6. In the case of State of J & K and Ors. V/s. Sajad Ahmed Mir - , the father of the respondent therein died in the year 1987. The respondent applied in 1991 for the first time. His application was rejected in March, 1996. He, however, kept silence and did nothing to challenge the same. After about three years in 1999, he woke up and challenged the decision. The Apex Court noticed that there was a wide haitus from 1987 to 1999. The Apex Court, therefore, set aside the direction of the High Court for appointment taking a compassionate view holding that such an appointment was an exception to a general Rule of appointment on competitive merits. The Apex Court noticed that there was a wide haitus from 1987 to 1999. The Apex Court, therefore, set aside the direction of the High Court for appointment taking a compassionate view holding that such an appointment was an exception to a general Rule of appointment on competitive merits. It was held in paragraph 11 "....Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution." 7. This Court finds no reason to arrive at a different conclusion. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.