JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the RPSC dated 13.1.1994 with the prayer that the respondents be directed to grant appointment to the petitioner as he is the sole son of late Shri Mohan Singh who was working as Class-IV with the respondents and while so working unfortunately died on 28.11.1977. 2. It is argued that the appointment provided to Devi Singh cannot be a reason for denying such benefit to the petitioner because Devi Singh happens to be brother of the deceased and petitioner being his son, would have superior right than Devi Singh. Learned counsel argued that petitioner was well as his mother had been pursuing this matter and that at the time when the late father of the petitioner died, he was minor and therefore he was not eligible for appointment. Subsequently, when he attained majority in the year 1993, he applied for such appointment, therefore, the appointment could not be mechanically refused without considering the fact whether the petitioner was in the condition of penury and facing financial hardship. It was argued that limitation of 45 days as pointed out in Rule 10(3) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 cannot be applied to such a case where the death has taken place when the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975 were applicable and since there was no such limitation in the Rules of 1975, the application could not even otherwise be rejected as time barred. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that only one dependent could be provided appointment and since widow of late Mohan Singh at that time had given in writing that the family was dependent on Devi Singh, therefore, he was appointed under the Rules of 1975. Now subsequently, even if the petitioner has attained majority, he cannot be considered for appointment because the right to claim compassionate appointment which accrued to his family got consumed with appointment of Devi Singh. Even otherwise, the application submitted by the widow of deceased on 21.12.1993 second time for appointment of his son in a case where the death of deceased took place on 28.11.1977, was absolutely time barred. Even otherwise, the application submitted by the widow of deceased on 21.12.1993 second time for appointment of his son in a case where the death of deceased took place on 28.11.1977, was absolutely time barred. It was argued that the petitioner has gone in adoption to Ramnath and Ratni Bai Chauhan and he was granted the succession certificate by the District Judge, Ajmer on 22.4.1998, therefore, he cannot be considered as dependent on deceased. It was argued that the writ petition itself has been filed in the year 2002 whereas the application submitted by the petitioner and his mother was rejected on 13.1.1994. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record and considering the arguments, I find that the reasons that the respondents have submitted in rejecting the application of the petitioner are just and correct. The petitioner would not be appointed when already his uncle was appointed in consideration of the fact that family was dependent on him and that too on the basis of consent given by his mother. Even otherwise, petitioner has gone into adoption to other family. This writ petition has been filed after 8 years after the date of rejection of application and accordingly 31 years after the date of death of father of the petitioner.The writ petition being devoid of any merits is, therefore, dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******