Judgment Hon'ble PARIHAR, J.—Since on similar set of facts the common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge, both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. There is no dispute that father of both the appellants Shri Babu Lal Saxena died while in service on 20.1.1976. The eldest brother of both the appellants Shri Ashok Kumar Saxena had been given compassionate appointment under the relevant Rules as existed at the relevant time on 7.2.1976. As it transpires, after appointment of Shri Ashok Kumar Saxena on compassionate grounds on 7.2.1976, the appellant-Arun Kumar Saxena also submitted an application for compassionate appointment and accordingly he was also given compassionate appointment on the post of Malaria Surveillance Worker on 1.5.1976. Subsequently, the younger brother Rajesh Kumar Saxena, appellant in one of the appeals, also sought compassionate appointment on the post of LDC on an application filed by his mother. Initially, the appointment was given on temporary basis vide order dated 11.9.1987, however, it seems that subsequently, on being regularized, he was also given further promotion to the post of UDC. 3. May be on some complaint or the fact having come to notice of the authorities in regard to compassionate appointment given to both the appellants in spite of the fact that elder brother of them already having been given compassionate appointment after death of their father, a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was issued to both the appellants. After holding an enquiry, the services of both the appellants were terminated vide order dated 14.10.1994 on the ground of concealment and misrepresentation at the time of seeking compassionate appointment. 4. Mr. Sandeep Saxena, appearing on behalf of the appellant Arun Kumar Saxena, submitted that there is no mention of compassionate appointment in his initial letter of appointment on the post of Malaria Surveillance Worker and, as such, the concealment or misrepresentation cannot be presumed. Similarly, Mr. Virendra Lodha, appearing on behalf of the appellant Rajesh Kumar Saxena also submitted that in the application for compassionate appointment the mother of the appellants had clearly mentioned that her elder son is already in service and, as such, the allegation of concealment and misrepresentation could not have been made against the appellant in charge sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. 5. 5. There is no dispute that under the relevant Rules only one member of the family of the deceased could be given compassionate appointment and that had already been given to the eldest son of the deceased on 7.2.1976 itself. A bare reading of the initial letters of appointment of both the appellants would show that the appointments were given on compassionate ground which otherwise could not have been given b the authorities under the provisions of the relevant Rules. Even if a wrong or illegal order under mistaken sympathies had been passed by the authorities concerned without verifying the facts or relevant Rules, the same would not create any vested right to continue them in the employment since on the very threshold they are not legally eligible for such appointment. 6. After having carefully gone through the material on record since after due consideration proper discretion has already been used by the learned Single Judge, in the facts and circumstances, we find no ground for any further interference of this Court. 7. The appeals are dismissed accordingly as having no merits.