JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.P. Singh representing the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15/21.10.2008 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition), whereby his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the Assistant General Manager Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (North) Noida. 3. It is said that the petitioner’s mother Smt. Chandrawati Devi died on 20.10.2004 while in service with the respondents and was working on the post of Stitcher at Gorakhpur. The petitioner being eligible sought compassionate appointment submitting an application on 8.6.2005 which was considered by the respondents but on account of lack of vacancy meant for compassionate appointment he could not be offered any compassionate appointment and his name was entered in the roster of compassionate appointee claims. However, no further vacancy could be available in the next one year also. Under the Instruction dated 5.5.2003 the claim for compassionate appointment can continue for consideration for a period of three years only and thereafter, it has to be dropped. The respondent did not find any vacancy for compassionate appointment of the petitioner within three years, so his case cannot be considered thereafter. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even at present there are 19 vacancies in the respondents’ office and therefore, he can be considered against one of such vacancies. However, he could not dispute that under the Instructions dated 5.5.2003 providing scheme of compassionate appointment, the claim of the petitioner can be considered within a period of three years from the date of death and not beyond that. It is well settled that the matter of compassionate appointment is strictly covered by the scheme and if under the scheme a compassionate appointment can not be provided after a particular period, no mandamus can be issued to the employer to consider the claim of compassionate appointment. 5. The idea and object of giving compassionate appointment is to mitigate immediate hardship, which has caused to the deceased family on account of sudden demise of the sole bread earner of the family and thus, the time is an important factor. 5. The idea and object of giving compassionate appointment is to mitigate immediate hardship, which has caused to the deceased family on account of sudden demise of the sole bread earner of the family and thus, the time is an important factor. If compassionate appointment is allowed after a reasonably long time, it would defeat the very object of assisting the family of deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to the death of bread earner, leaving his/her family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The matter has been considered by the Apex Court as well as this Court time and again and it would be useful to have a bird’s eye view on some of such authorities of Apex Court. 6. In the case of Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1989 SC 1976 , the Apex Court while considering the object of granting appointment observed as under : “The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.” 7. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, 1994 (4) SCC 138 , the Apex Court reiterating the said purpose further explained nature of right of legal heirs qua employment, as under : “The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family...............The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment, which are suddenly upturned............ Unmindful of this legal position, some Governments and public authorities have been offering compassionate employment sometimes as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased...........The decision does not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of course.......................The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased’s family.......... The consideration for such employment is not a vested right.............. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis.” 8. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singh, JT 1997 (8) SC 332, the Apex Court cautioned that the object of providing compassionate employment is only to relieve the family from financial hardship. Therefore, an ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening of alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. 9. Again in Director of Education (Secondary) and another v. Pushpendra Kumar and others, 1998 (5) SCC 192 , the Apex Court observed as under : “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-earned 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 dependents 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. 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.” 10. In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, JT 2000 (10) SC 156, the Apex Court reiterated that the compassionate appointment is provided only to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crises resulting due to the death of sole bread-earner who had left the family in penury without any means of livelihood but it cannot be treated to be a reserved vacancy for the dependants of the deceased Government servant who died in harness. 11. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi, 2002 LLJ 773 , the Apex Court while reiterating the objective of compassionate appointment as laid down in the earlier cases further observed that the application made at a belated stage cannot be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, the purpose of making such appointment stands evaporated. 12. In State of Manipur v. Mohd. Rajaodin, 2003 (7) SCC 511 , the Apex Court reiterated that the purpose of giving compassionate appointment is only to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death in service, only to alleviate the distress of the family but at a belated stage, as these grounds are no more in existence, therefore, the employment cannot be claimed or provided. 13. In National Institute of Technology and others v. Niraj Kumar Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 481 the Hon’ble Apex Court quoted with approval a Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Govt. 13. In National Institute of Technology and others v. Niraj Kumar Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 481 the Hon’ble Apex Court quoted with approval a Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. v. D. Gopaiah, (2002) 93 FLR 12 (AP)(FB) wherein it was observed “by reason of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, great hopes and aspirations were generated in the minds of the people of India that employment shall not be given on descent”. 14. In State Bank of India and others v. Jaspal Kaur, JT 2007 (3) SC 35 the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 27 observed as under : “Hence a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family the deceased person left behind. Unless the financial condition is entirely penury, such appointments cannot be made.” 15. Considering the facts of the present case, in the light of the law as discussed above, I do not find any reason to direct the authorities to look into this matter after such a long time as that may provide a licence to the authorities to bye pass the objective of the scheme of compassionate appointment. Moreover when the scheme of compassionate appointment itself does not admit of taking into consideration a case which is older by three years, this Court cannot allow a person claiming compassionate appointment to be considered beyond the terms of the scheme since being an exception, the claim is confined to scheme and cannot extend beyond that. Compassionate appointment is not a reservation on a post by succession and, therefore, if the circumstances so permit either it may be claimed within a reasonable time after the death of the deceased employee or the successor or the legal heir of the deceased employee should compete with the people at large who would also aspiring and waiting for their turn to get an opportunity to be considered for such public employment. 16. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that according to the terms of Instruction dated 5.5.2003 his case is now barred by time since after three years he cannot be considered for compassionate appointment. 17. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and the impugned order cannot be faulted. 18. 16. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that according to the terms of Instruction dated 5.5.2003 his case is now barred by time since after three years he cannot be considered for compassionate appointment. 17. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and the impugned order cannot be faulted. 18. The writ petition does not deserve any interference and, is therefore, dismissed in limine. ————