JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Respondents appoint Petitioner clerk on the to as a compassionate ground as he has been wrongly appointed as a peon. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that the Petitioner's father while working as a Junior Clerk in the District Civil Court, Dhenkanal died in harness on 7.9.2001 leaving behind his widow and two children. After attaining the majority and acquiring the qualification, Petitioner applied for compassionate employment and he was offered appointment as Malkahana Peon under Class IV category vide order dated 21.1.2005. The Petitioner joined the said post and at present working in the Court of S.D.J.M., Kamakhyanagar. Petitioner claims that he should have been offered the appointment on the post of Clerk i.e. according to his qualification as he has completed + 2 course and in the meantime prosecuting +3 course privately. As his representation for the said claim remained pending, he preferred W.P.(C) No. 8531 of 2005 before this Court which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 13.2.2006 with a direction to the learned District Judge to consider and decide his representation. However, the said representation was rejected vide order dated 11.1.2008. Hence this writ petition. 3. Mr. S.B. Jena, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that employment on compassionate ground should have been made taking into consideration the qualification of the Petitioner and therefore, Petitioner is entitled to be appointed as a clerk and the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the contrary, Mr. Khuntia, learned Addl. Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the petition contending that the Petitioner had accepted the appointment on the post of peon without any protest and he is working on the said post since then. Once he has accepted the offer, the compassionate came to an end and nothing remains for the Respondents to consider. The petition is totally misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Once he has accepted the offer, the compassionate came to an end and nothing remains for the Respondents to consider. The petition is totally misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 5. The issue of appointment on compassionate ground has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again and in substance it has been observed that the object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both the ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision. Care has, therefore, to be taken that a provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provision, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds for the dependant of a deceased employee. Therefore, it is only because of the change in the status and affairs of the family, engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned, such appointment are permissible. 6. In Director of Education (Secondary) and Another Vs. Therefore, it is only because of the change in the status and affairs of the family, engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned, such appointment are permissible. 6. In Director of Education (Secondary) and Another Vs. Pushpendra Kumar and Others the Apex Court examined the scheme for that purpose as provided in U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, wherein the Allahabad High Court issued direction to create Class- III supernumerary posts to offer appointment on compassionate ground observing that High Court should not have issued such a direction as it is not permissible for any applicant to have a vested right in any post. At the most, the Class-IV post could have been offered in case the Class-III posts were not available. 7. In State of Bihar and others etc. Vs. Samsuz Zoha etc. the Apex Court dealt with the policy decision of the State Government to appoint all the candidates irrespective of the qualification on Class IV post. The High Court interfered with the matter and directed to give employment according to their qualification. The Apex Court reversed the said judgment observing that in such a fact situation there could be no justification for the High Court to issue direction to give appointment on the post of Class- III. The Court observed: It is not in dispute that there is no right vested in the candidates for particular appointment on compassionate grounds If the direction (of the High Court) are complied with all the Class-IV posts would be converted into Class-III posts which is against the discipline of the service. 8. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao Singh the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a similar issue, wherein after accepting the appointment on the post of LDC, the applicant claimed appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector. The Court held that once the right is consummated, any further or second consideration for higher post on the ground of compassion would not arise. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of "endless compassion". There was no legal justification for the High Court to direct a further consideration of the candidature of the applicant on the post of Sub-Inspector. While deciding the said case, the Apex Court relied upon its earlier judgment in State of Haryana Vs. Naresh Kumar Bali, . 9. Otherwise, it would be a case of "endless compassion". There was no legal justification for the High Court to direct a further consideration of the candidature of the applicant on the post of Sub-Inspector. While deciding the said case, the Apex Court relied upon its earlier judgment in State of Haryana Vs. Naresh Kumar Bali, . 9. In I.G. (Karmik) and Others Vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once the Petitioner accepted the post of peon without any demur whatsoever, there is nothing for him to ask further. Upon obtaining appointment in a lower post, the applicant could not have been permitted to turn round and contend that he was entitled for a higher post. 10. In view of the above, we reach in an inescapable conclusion that compassionate appointment has a specific purpose and it could be offered only to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner. Therefore, no applicant can claim a vested right in any particular class of appointment nor such an appointment is to confer status on the family and once an appointment had been offered and accepted, it is not permissible for the applicant to claim appointment in the higher post. 11. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed