JUDGEMENT J.B.KOSHY and RAVI RANJAN JJ. 1. The writ petitioner prayed for employment under Compassionate Employment Scheme as her husband died-in-harness on 20th May, 2004. That application was rejected as the application was not filed under the prescribed form. The petitioner was informed by the respondent-Bank that she did not apply in the prescribed form. New Rule came in effect in 2005. In terms of the new Rule she is entitled to apply for ex gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment. 2. Petitioners contention is that since her husband died in 2004 before new Rule came into effect her application should be considered as per the Scheme in 2004 and not the new Scheme 2005 and application may be considered as per 2004 Scheme even if it was not filed under prescribed form in 2004. Compassionate Appointment Scheme is an exception to the normal Scheme of appointment as it is settled in law that a public employment can only be given by an open invitation. However, compassionate appointment is given as an exception. Keeping in mind the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution and the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee due to sudden drop in income to tide over immediate difficulties scheme or rules in various establishment allow compassionate appointment of dependents of deceased employee and it should be given only if he/she fits under the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.; (1994) 4 SCC 138 , that appointments in public service are made strictly on the basis of an open invitation of application on merit. Compassionate appointment is only an exception to tide over the financial difficulties of the family of a deceased employee. 3. The case of the respondent-Bank is that on the death of the petitioners husband, a subordinate staff, petitioner is entitled to pension apart from other amount received as pensionary benefits. In any event her consideration of application in 2004 Scheme will not arise as she never applied in the prescribed form when the scheme was in force. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Jaspal Kaur; 2007 (2) PLJR (SC)39. In that case the employee died in 1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Jaspal Kaur; 2007 (2) PLJR (SC)39. In that case the employee died in 1999. His wife applied for compassionate appointment in time. That application was considered and rejected in 2002 but the High Court granted relief as per 2005, (new) Scheme. Supreme Court held that her application filed in 2000 and rejected before 2005 Scheme came into force cannot be considered as per 2005 Scheme. The order regarding Compassionate Appointment was passed in 2000 much before the new Scheme came into force and the order of the High Court granting relief to the respondent under the new Scheme was set aside by the Honble Supreme Court. The Honble Supreme Court also reiterated the principle laid down in the decision of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra). In this case even though the petitioners husband died in 2004 and no application in the prescribed form was filed before the new Scheme in 2005 came in force. Since she did not apply in prescribed form under old 2004 Scheme was there before her application cannt be considered in that scheme. 4. In the circumstances, it is for the petitioner to file application under the 2005 Scheme in the prescribed form and in view of the pendency of the writ petition delay should not be taken benefit of 2005 Scheme if she files application in the prescribed form. 5. The petitioner also cannot challenge the provision of Rule 9 of the new Scheme as there it is stated that on pending a pplication the order can be passed in accordance with the above Scheme. As already stated compassionate appointment is an exception of the general Scheme and benefit cannot be granted under the old Scheme. 6. The application is dismissed with the observations as above.