Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is the son of late K.Azhagappan, who was employed as a Watchman in Alanthur, under the control of the fourth respondent. He had died in harness, on 1. 1983. At the time of his death, K.Azhagappan, had left behind his wife Kaliammal, four sons and a daughter, as his legal heirs. The petitioners elder brother, A. Chitrarasu, was married at the time of the death of his father and he was living separately with his family. However, the petitioner, his mother and his two brothers and a sister were dependents on the deceased employee. In such circumstances, the petitioners mother, namely, Kaliammal, had submitted a representation, dated 16. 1983, to the fourth respondent, requesting for employment for the petitioner, on compassionate grounds. However, since no action had been taken on the representation sent by the petitioners mother, the petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 10. 1983, addressed to the second respondent requesting him to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, so as to enable him to maintain his mother, his brother and his sister. Thereafter, several representations had been sent to the authorities concerned, to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. However, by an order, dated 22. 2000, the first respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner stating that the request for appointment on compassionate grounds has been made, belatedly, after a period of nine years after the death of the employee concerned. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred an original application in O.A.No.3186 of 2001, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.5128 of 2007. 3. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is highly belated. Therefore, it was rightly rejected by the first respondent by his impugned order, dated 22. 2000. 4. The following are some of the recent decisions relating to appointments on compassionate grounds. 1. In State Bank of India and another Vs. Therefore, it was rightly rejected by the first respondent by his impugned order, dated 22. 2000. 4. The following are some of the recent decisions relating to appointments on compassionate grounds. 1. In State Bank of India and another Vs. Somvir Singh ( 2007 (4) SCC 778 ), the Supreme Court had held that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner, providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process. Such appointments are required to be made on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Dependants of employees who had died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer. The claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules, etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of a scheme or instructions, as the case may be. 2. In I.G.(Karmik) and others Vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi ( 2007(6) SCC 162 ), the Supreme Court had held that compassionate appointment must be in consonance with the Constitutional scheme of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. In Union Bank of India and others Vs. M.T.Latheesh ( 2006(7) SCC 350 ), the Supreme Court had held that grant of employment on compassionate grounds in all cases, would shut the door for employment to the increasing number of unemployed youth. 4. In Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal Field Ltd., and others ( 2007(8) SCC 549 ), the Supreme Court had recognised the fact that appointment on compassionate grounds are an exception to Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. 5. In State Bank of India and others Vs. Jaspal Kaur ( 2007(9) SCC 571 ), the Supreme Court had held that a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family of the deceased person. The appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment is at the discretion of the authority concerned. 5. In State Bank of India and others Vs. Jaspal Kaur ( 2007(9) SCC 571 ), the Supreme Court had held that a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family of the deceased person. The appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment is at the discretion of the authority concerned. The discretion is to be exercised keeping in view the scheme and the object and the rationale behind it. However, it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 6. "In H.Anwar Basha Vs. The Registrar General, Madras High Court ( 2008 (3) CTC 785 ), a Division Bench of this Court had held that the object of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the sufferings of the bereaved family of the Government servant who had died in harness leaving his family in indigent circumstances. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and in view of the decisions rendered by the Courts of law and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be entertained by the respondents after nearly nine years from the death of the petitioners father, who had died in harness, on 1. 1983. The purpose for which such appointments are made, by relaxing the rules applicable to the regular process of recruitment, would be defeated if the request of the petitioner is entertained, after a lapse of many years. The scheme for compassionate appointment has been formulated to help the family of the deceased employee, to tide over the crisis arising due to the sudden death of the breadwinner of the family. 6. The appointments on compassionate grounds are made in order to alleviate the sufferings of the members of the family of the deceased employee, who are in indigent circumstances. Further, the appointments on compassionate grounds can be made only in accordance with the rules and regulations and the Government orders applicable to such appointment. In the present case, as seen from the records, the petitioner is said to have made a representation for appointment on compassionate grounds, belatedly, after a period of nine years from the death of his father, K.Azhagappan, who had died in harness, on 1. 1983. In the present case, as seen from the records, the petitioner is said to have made a representation for appointment on compassionate grounds, belatedly, after a period of nine years from the death of his father, K.Azhagappan, who had died in harness, on 1. 1983. Since the appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the general rules of recruitment, it has to be exercised only in deserving cases, in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable to such appointment. 7. In such circumstances, since the claim of the petitioner, for appointment on compassionate grounds, is devoid of merits, the wit petition stands dismissed. No costs.