JUDGMENT A.K. GANGULY, C.J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By the consent of parties, we are taking up the appeal and disposing of the same along with the petition filed for vacating the stay. The writ appeal has been filed challenging an order dated 27.8.2007 passed by a learned Judge of the writ Court, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to allow the prayer of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Against the said order, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board”) has filed the appeal and a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 12.3.2008, was pleased to stay of the order passed by the learned Judge of the writ Court. Against the said order of stay, the writ petitioner has filed W.V.M.P. No. 2 of 2008 for vacating the stay. 2. As pointed above, we are taking up both the petition for vacating the stay and also the writ appeal together. The facts of the case are as follows: The father of the writ petitioner who is the respondent before us died while in service on 23.7.2001, leaving behind his wife, daughter, two sons and the mother. The writ petitioner, D.V. Cholan, was one of the sons. He applied for compassionate appointment to the Board in the year 2002. At that time, the mother of the petitioner was working in the Board. As such, the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was not granted in view of the fact that the mother was working and as per the scheme framed by the Board, if any member of the family works at the time of making the application for compassionate appointment, such application cannot be considered. Thereafter, in the year 2004, the mother of the petitioner opted for voluntary retirement. Immediately, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 17.6.2004. When the said application was made, which was the second application, the petitioner did not disclose the full particulars of his mother’s appointment. In the application, there is a column under 11(c) and under the said column, the applicant/petitioner has to disclose if any of the dependents in the family of the deceased is employed and give full particulars thereof. Against the said column, the petitioner merely disclosed the name of his mother. But the particulars of the employment of his mother were not disclosed. Against the said column, the petitioner merely disclosed the name of his mother. But the particulars of the employment of his mother were not disclosed. Therefore, this amounts to improper disclosure of the information which was required to be disclosed by the petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that once the right of the petitioner to seek an appointment on compassionate ground on the death of the father was turned down on a valid objection, the said right cannot be revived when his mother opted for voluntary retirement. It is common ground that if mother opts for voluntary retirement, that does not justify the filing of an application for compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment is confined to cases where the only bread-earner of the family dies in harness. In the instant case, the said situation occurred and the petitioner applied and the said application was turned down on a valid ground. That right cannot, therefore, be revived when the mother opted for voluntary retirement. That, in our opinion, cannot be the interpretation of the scheme governing compassionate appointment. 3. It is well known that there is no right to obtain compassionate appointment The Honourable Apex Court has held that compassionate appointment is an appointment which is granted virtually in the teeth of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of our Constitution and such appointment causes great injustice to the vast majority of unemployed people who have to complete along with others for the purpose of getting appointment So, the so called right of compassionate appointment is a very weak right and such appointment has been allowed only in order to give the family which is in distress some benefit to tide over the immediate financial stringency in which the family is thrown on the sudden demise of the sole bread-earner. Here, the situation is totally different. At the time of the demise of the bread-winner of the petitioner’s family, his mother was earning and the applicant was living with the mother in the same family. Apart from that, from the materials on record, we find that on the father’s death, the family received terminal benefit of Rs. 7,25,000/- and on the mother’s opting for voluntary retirement, the family received an amount of Rs. 6,57,500/-. So in all, the family has received an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/-. This appears from the affidavit filed by the Board. Apart from that, from the materials on record, we find that on the father’s death, the family received terminal benefit of Rs. 7,25,000/- and on the mother’s opting for voluntary retirement, the family received an amount of Rs. 6,57,500/-. So in all, the family has received an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/-. This appears from the affidavit filed by the Board. So, the family was not under such financial stringency as to justify an appointment on compassionate ground. 4. So, this Court, after taking the totality of the situation into consideration, is of the view that in the instant case, the writ petitioner, i.e., the respondent before us, is not entitled to an order of compassionate appointment and the order passed by the learned Judge of the writ Court, with great respect, was not passed on a proper exercise of discretion. The writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Judge of the first Court is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. M.P. No. 2 of 2008 is thus disposed of and consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2008 is closed. Writ appeal allowed.