JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J.—This judgment is being dictated in open Court in the presence of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner herein- is seeking quashing of orders dated 21.9.2001 and 26.12.2001, whereby the petitioners application for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents. Petitioners father Shri Partap Singh, D.E.S., 345628, M.E.S. while working with the respondents expired on 10.12.1991. It seems that petitioners mother made an application dated 14.5.1992 for compassionate appointment, which was responded to by the respondents-authorities on 4.7.1992. It was clarified that while the petitioner, who was minor at that point of time was ineligible for appointment being below 18 years of age, it was open for the petitioners mother to apply for appointment in MES. She was also asked to submit various documents. Admittedly, petitioners mother did not apply and only in the year 1995 petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, which application was processed through Director, Sainik Welfare Board, H.P. and only after completion of formalities by the petitioner, a decision was taken thereupon in terms of letter dated 21.9.2001 whereby his application for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected. 3. The reasons for rejection of his application are that the petitioners mother does not have liabilities of unmarried daughters and minor children; petitioners family has land measuring 3 Kanals and 94 Marlas and a house to live in and that with the passage of time the need for immediate assistance by way of compassionate appointment to tide over the emergency and crisis cease to exist. 4. The authorities took into account the relevant guidelines of the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Defence as also various decisions of the Supreme Court rendered over a period of time. 5. The matter did not rest there. Petitioner served a legal notice dated 27.11.2001 upon the authorities, which was also considered and the request of the petitioner was again turned down in terms of reply dated 26.12.2001. 6. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that action of the authorities is totally illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unjust, unfair, unconstitutional and is liable to be set aside. He argued that since the petitioner had applied in the year 1995 he ought to have been granted compassionate appointment to tide over the crisis which the family was suffering due to untimely and sad demise of his father in the year 1991. 7. He argued that since the petitioner had applied in the year 1995 he ought to have been granted compassionate appointment to tide over the crisis which the family was suffering due to untimely and sad demise of his father in the year 1991. 7. Per contra, Mr.Pathak, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the order of rejection is totally legal, justifiable and there was no case made out for rendering any consideration for compassionate appointment. He also argued that had the family been in urgent and dire need of financial assistance, petitioners mother could have applied for compassionate appointment, which opportunity was duly given to her and for reasons best known to the family, she chose not to come forward and seek compassionate appointment. He argued further that in any event it is over 16 years that the petitioners father has died and therefore the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 8. It is settled principle of law that compassionate appointment is an exception to general rule that appointment to public office should be made on the basis of comparative merits. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of bread earner substantial period is over, there is no need to make appointment on compassionate appointment at the cost of interest of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Apart from the fact that the family has been able to tide over the crisis, the authorities were also of the view that petitioners family is landed family having sufficient agricultural land and a residential house. 9. No other point was urged by the learned Counsel for the parties. 10. Before parting, I appreciate the efforts made by Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner in assisting the Court. 11. In my view, no case for interference is made out by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -