Judgment D. Murugesan, J. 1. The father of the petitioner by name S. Muthusamy, was working as Lance Naik under the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, died on 18.02.1992. At that point of time, the petitioner was minor. It appears, he became major in the year 2001 and an application for appointment on compassionate ground was made on 23.01.2006 and the said application was rejected by the third respondent, by order dated 17.07.2006, on the ground that it was belated. The said order has been questioned in this writ petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. It is well settled in law that the appointment on compassionate ground is made only to tide over the situation in the family and there is no automatic right vested in a person for such appointment. In the judgment reported in 2007 (2) Supreme 336 (State Bank of India and another vs. Somvir Singh), the Supreme Court has held that such appointment is not automatic. Moreover, in the facts of the case, the father of the petitioner died on 18.02.1992 and the application for compassionate appointment, after a period of nearly 14 years, need not be considered, as the very object of the appointment on compassionate ground is to tide over the situation due to the death of the bread-winner of the family. 4. In State of Haryana and Others v. Rani Devi and another, AIR 1996 SC 2445 : 1996 (5) SCC 308 , the Supreme Court has held that the claim of applicant for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependant on the deceased-employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered reasonable as also allowable on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of the employee who had served the State and died while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative instructions which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 5. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative instructions which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 5. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others 1994 (4) SCC 138 : 1995-I-LLJ-798, it was ruled that public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and on merits. The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment. It is merely an exception to the requirement of law, keeping in view the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. Such appointments on compassionate ground, therefore, have to be made in accordance with rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. This favourable treatment to the dependant of the deceased employee must have clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved thereby, i.e., relief against destitution. At the same time, however, it should not be forgotten that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions and 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 expectation, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment, which are suddenly upturned." 6. Such appointment cannot be considered if the application is made after a considerable lapse of time, either not later than the prescribed time by the scheme or within a considerable time. The said view is taken by the Supreme Court in Smt.Sushma Gosain and Others vs. Union of India and Others, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1976 , wherein it was observed that in claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should be no delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment 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. 7. The purpose of providing appointment 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. 7. Recently, the Apex Court in State of J & K and Others v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 605, has held that once it is established that in spite of the death of the bread-winner, the family had survived for a period of 15 years, there is no necessity to order appointment on compassionate ground. 8. Factually, in this case, the Family has survived for a period of 14 years after the demise of the father of the petitioner and therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of rejection. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.