ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner working as Peon in the office of respondent No.3 Agriculture (engineer), Bilaspur, died on 42-1999 in harness. The petitioner being minor i.e. nine years, at that point of time, could not make an application for appointment on compassionate basis. However, the petitioner, on attaining the age of majority, made an application on 7-11-2008 for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner has no sources of income and financial condition of his family is pathetic. The application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent-authorities on the ground that the petitioner has not made the application for grant of compassionate appointment within the stipulated period and the same has been communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 10-2-2009. Thus, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not make an application for grant of compassionate appointment earlier as he was minor and on attaining the age of majority, he made an application for appointment on compassionate basis. There is no other source of income in the family of the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it is evident that the circular dated 2-2-2006 with regard to compassionate appointment has been considered and approved by this Court in a catena of decisions. Clause 3(9) 3 of the circular dated 2-2-2006 very specifically provides that. Thus, the ground of rejection does not seem to be illegal or improper. 5. Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, out is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution, in other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. 6. In Haryana State Electricity Board and another Vs. 6. In Haryana State Electricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh) the Supreme Court held that "the whole object of any compassionate appointment schemes is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning members." 7. In State of Manipur Vs. Md. Rajaodin2 the Supreme Court, after having heard various cases on compassionate appointment, observed as under: "11. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (1989 (4) SCC 468) it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointments on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was reiterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) Vs. Union of India and ors. (1991 Supp (2) SCC 689) and Union of India and ors. Vs. Bhagwan Singh (1995 (6) SCC 476). In Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. Vs. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors. (1998 (5) SCC 192) it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely 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 ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of the deceased employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision." 8. The Supreme Court in State of J & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir3, in para 11 has held as under: "11. . . . . . 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 complete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole bread winner, the family survived and the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that inspite 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." 9. Applying well settled principle of law to the facts of the case and the family members of the deceased employee had survived for more than 10 years, the reasons for compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial problem of the deceased employee, is not available for appointment on compassionate basis. There is no merit in this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Petition Dismissed.