ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties finally. Petitioner has claimed her appointment on compassionate ground against the death of her husband, Ropan Sao who died on 28.11.2000. 2. Mr. C.S. Prasad, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are not finalising the matter and therefore petitioner is not responsible for the delay. 3. The stand of the respondents is that the minimum qualification for appointment on Class IV post is 8th Class pass, but during interview the Screening Committee found that petitioner is unable to read and write. Petitioners Transfer Certificate was verified with the School records by the District Education Officer, Ranchi and it was found fake. Accordingly, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee rejected petitioners claim. 4. Though such stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit filed as far as back on 19.9.2007 has not been controverted by the petitioner, but Mr. Prasad submitted that petitioner should have been given opportunity, before holding that her certificate was fake. No mala fide has been alleged against the District Education Officer, who verified the school records, and found the certificate fake. Petitioner had opportunity, but she did not controvert the said statements made in the counter affidavit and did not produce anything to show that the certificate was not fake. Petitioner could not read and write in the interview. In these circumstances, she cannot complain violation of natural justice. 5. Moreover petitioner has surviving for more than seven years. There is no dispute that she has received death-cumretiral benefits. In the case Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. it has been held that consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. Paragraph 11 of , State of J. and K. and Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reads as follows: We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought "compassion", the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reads as follows: We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought "compassion", the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. 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. 6. In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.