Judgment 1. The petitioner is the son of one Rajavel, who was working as Head Master of A.Ramalingapuram Panchayat Union Middle School belonging to Srivilliputhur block. He got himself medically discharged on 18. 1996. At that time, the petitioners father was 53 years old. The petitioner on the basis of the medical disqualification of his father applied for compassionate appointment. 2. According to the petitioner such of those of the employees, who got medical invalidated can be give compassionate appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.1025 Labour and Employment dated 211. 1996. The petitioners recommendation was rejected by the third respondent, Director by communication dated 08.07.1997. It is stated in the said communication that by the Government letter dated 211. 1982, the scheme for appointment will apply to those persons who are medically invalid before completion of 50 years of age. Since the petitioners father was retired for medical invalidation at the age of 53, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be considered. This order was challenged before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.9050 of 1997. 3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.30878 of 2006. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a letter of the Government dated 211. 1982 is in the nature of the executive order that cannot deprive the petitioner getting benefit in terms of the Government Order issued by the Government. Though the learned counsel attempted to state that the scheme of compassionate appointment available in the State Government services is statutory, there is no reference to any statutory rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, the entire scheme of compassionate appointment is based upon the set of Government guide lines and letters issued from time to time. Therefore, the argument that by an executive instruction the scheme has been curtailed, cannot be accepted. It must be stated that the Supreme Court has time and again emphasized that the scheme of compassionate appointment by offering employment to legal heir of Government servants is an exception to Article 16 of the Constitution of India and the scheme will have to be construed strictly. In the absence of any scheme, no person has got right to demand compassionate appointment dehors existing rules. 5. In the absence of any scheme, no person has got right to demand compassionate appointment dehors existing rules. 5. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court In Food Corporation of India And Another Vs. Ram Keshyadav And Another Reported In (2007) 9 SCC 531 in support of his argument. In that case, the fact situation which arose before the Supreme Court was, there was a conditional invalidation of the Government servant with a request for the compassionate appointment to the ward of the said servant and therefore, the Food Corporation of India having allowed to retire, the corresponding application to offer employment to the son of the employee was not granted. Therefore, the Supreme Court in the fact situation and also the scheme prevailing in Food Corporation of India granted a relief in that that case. This can be seen in paragraph 17 of the Judgment as extracted below: “The question in this case is not whether the request of the respondent was contrary to the scheme. Not is it the question, whether the scheme would be violated if the first respondent is appointed on compassionate grounds. The limited question is whether FCI, having accepted performance of the offer by the second respondent, can refuse to perform or comply with the condition subject to which such offer was made. The answer is obviously in the negative. Having accepted the offer, FCI cannot avoid performance of the condition subject which the offer was made. As notified earlier, nothing prevented FCI from rejecting the application of the employee outright, or inform the employee before accepting the offer of voluntary retirement that it could not accept the condition, so that the employee would have had the option to withdraw the offer itself." 6. In the light of the rule position, in the present case, the reliance upon the Supreme Court Judgment does not help the case of the petitioner. Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.