JUDGMENT : R. M. Doshit, J. 1. This Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the order dated 21st September 2007 made by the learned single Judge in the above Special Civil Application No. 24360 of 2007. The matter at dispute is the compassionate employment claimed by the respondent-writ petitioner. 2. The writ petitioner Ajaykumar Gajendraprasad Mehta is the son of one Gajendraprasad Mehta. In the year 1979 the said Gajendraprasad was employed as a driver under the Superintending Engineer, Palam Irrigation Circle, Panchmahal. In view of his illness, he was reverted as Chowkidar in Class-IV service. Since his reversion as Chowkidar, he passed away on 14th January, 2003. At that time, the writ petitioner was a minor of around 16 years of age. On 10th August, 2004, the writ petitioner applied for compassionate employment. As the writ petitioner was still a minor, his application for compassionate employment was not accepted. After attaining the majority, the writ petitioner applied for compassionate employment on 10th March, 2005. Under communication dated 8th October, 2005, his application for compassionate employment was rejected as it was not made within the specified time. 3. Since the rejection of his application on 8th October, 2005, the writ petitioner continued to make request for compassionate employment. As his request was not accepted, the writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the above Special Civil Application No. 24360 of 2007. 4. The writ petition was circulated before the learned single Judge on 21st September, 2007. Learned single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition and to direct the appellants-respondents "to reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the policy dated 10th March, 2000 Item No. 8B, where, it is provided that in case when the concerned employee died at the relevant time if any dependent is minor, then, State Government shall have to wait till he becomes major. Now, decision of respondent rejecting the case of petitioner is contrary to that policy. Therefore, respondent shall have to consider the case of petitioner on merits according to the policy prevailing at the relevant time when the father died within a period of three months from the date of receiving the copy of the said order and communicate the same to the petitioner immediately." 5. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents-State of Gujarat and others have preferred the present Appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents-State of Gujarat and others have preferred the present Appeal. 6. The scheme for compassionate employment to the dependents of the Government servant in Class-III and Class-IV service then prevalent in the State of Gujarat had been modified by the Government of Gujarat under its Resolution dated 10th March, 2000. The said Resolution specifically provided : "This scheme of giving compassionate appointments under this Resolution has no constitutional backing that means no right is established for compassionate appointment under this scheme. Such appointment shall be subject to the compliance of all terms and conditions for appointment like other cases along with availability of vacancies as prescribed under this scheme." Clause 8 of the said scheme provided for time limit for making application. Sub-clause (A) thereof provided for making the application immediately after the death of the employee concerned. It further provided "The application made after three months from the date of the death of the employee concerned shall not be taken into consideration in any circumstances." Clause 8(B) relied upon by the learned single Judge reads as under. Since the basic objective of this scheme is to provide immediate assistance to give relief in economic hardship and to bring the dependent family out of the unexpected critical situation, in no case the compassionate appointment will be given in any circumstances after waiting till any member of the dependent family who was minor at the time of the death of the employee, becomes major. Therefore, the widow or widower or any eligible major member of the dependent family shall make application within time limit for compassionate appointment on the lowest category of Class-III or Class-IV post in accordance with his educational qualification at the time of the death of the employee and shall have to accept the appointment admissible as per educational qualification. The eligibility of securing compassionate appointment by widow, widower or any member of the dependent family shall be considered suo motu cancelled, who fails to make application in prescribed time limit or who rejects the appointment given to him/her according to his/her educational qualification at the relevant time and no claim can be made regarding that subsequently." 7. Learned AGP Ms. Nair has appeared for the appellants. Learned AGP Ms. Nair has appeared for the appellants. She has submitted that the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate employment was indeed decided in accordance with the policy of the State Government contained in Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2000 and particularly in light of the Clause 8(B) thereof. The direction of the learned single Judge to reconsider the claim of the writ petitioner in accordance with Clause 8(B) of the Government policy dated 10th March, 2000 was not warranted. She has further submitted that the learned single Judge has erred in interpreting the aforesaid Resolution dated 10th March, 2000. The observation "Item 8B, where, it is provided that in case when the concerned employee died at the relevant time if any dependent is minor, then, State Government shall have to wait till he becomes major" is manifestly wrong and contrary to what is set out in the said Clause 8(B). 8. Learned advocate Mr. Dave has appeared for the respondent. He has contested the Appeal. He has submitted that all that the learned single Judge has directed to do is to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner for compassionate employment in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2000. Against such order an appeal should not lie. He has further submitted that the Resolution dated 10th March, 2000, particularly clause 8 thereof, has been considered by this Court in the matter of Ajitsinh Chandrasinh Gohil v. Additional Director General of Police and another ( 2007 (3) GLH 313 ). The learned single Judge of this Court has categorically held "...It is not the case of the respondent authority that the case of the petitioner is not covered by policy dated 10-3-2000. Clarification made by the State Government in 2000 itself is providing that if the member of the dependent family was minor at the time of death of his father or mother or as the case may be, then, it is necessary for such dependent to make such application within the period of two years from the date on which he attains majority." 9. He has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Jayeshkumar Amratlal Makwana v. State of Gujarat (Special Civil Application No. 12318 of 2005 decided on 13th January 2006, Coram: Jayant Patel, J.). He has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Jayeshkumar Amratlal Makwana v. State of Gujarat (Special Civil Application No. 12318 of 2005 decided on 13th January 2006, Coram: Jayant Patel, J.). In the said matter, the learned single Judge held, "...To appreciate and examine the contention raised on behalf of the State, it deserves to be recorded that the social circumstances prevailing cannot be ignored. It is true that in public employment, the involvement and participation by female member is encouraged but, if due to peculiar social circumstances, the widow woman who is otherwise not as a working woman, is not desirous to offer herself for public employment and is desirous to see that other male member or other dependent child of the deceased employee is given right to apply for compassionate appointment, the same cannot be said as a valid ground to conclude that the family member/widow of the deceased employee has abandoned right for compassionate appointment. Such may not apply generally to every case but at the same time, the possibilities of certain peculiar social circumstances for the widow of the deceased employee for not offering herself for the public employment, cannot be ignored and the same may not operate as a bar when the application of other dependent member of the family who is the eldest in the family is to be considered. If such other members of the family of the deceased employee has become major after some time, then in that case, it would be required for the authority to examine the financial conditions of the family of the deceased employee prevailing at the time of application for compassionate appointment and then to decide as to whether financial support is required to be extended for survival to the family of the deceased employee or not, subject to the applicability of other conditions as may be prevailing at the time of considering the application for compassionate appointment, which may include the fulfilling of the educational qualification, the availability of the post etc." 10. Mr. Dave has also relied upon the communication dated 6th June, 2001 addressed by the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, General Administrative Department, to the Secretaries to the Government of Gujarat in other departments. Mr. Dave has also relied upon the communication dated 6th June, 2001 addressed by the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, General Administrative Department, to the Secretaries to the Government of Gujarat in other departments. Under the said communication, a general clarification is made in respect of period of limitation for application for compassionate employment prevailing at different times. 11. It may be noted that the aforesaid communication was issued in respect of the cases pending for consideration prior to the revised policy/scheme contained in the Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2000. As recorded herein-above, the father of the petitioner died in the year 2003. The scheme applicable was the one contained in the Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2000. The clarification made in the aforesaid communication dated 6th June, 2001 has no relevance for the purpose of the present matter. 12. We have reproduced the above referred Clause 8(B) herein-above. It is abundantly clear that what is intended is to offer compassionate employment in eligible cases as soon as possible and that the request shall be made within three months from the date of the death. No separate limitation is provided for the dependents who are minor at the time of the death and will attain majority at any time in the next 18 years. The reference to "two years from the date the minor attains majority" made in the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge and in the matter of Ajitsinh Chandrasinh Gohil (supra) is not found in the aforesaid Clause 8(B) at all. Evidently, the said judgments are not based on the scheme for compassionate employment. Similar is the case in the matter of Jayeshkumar Amratlal Makwana (supra). The matter is decided on general sense of compassion and not in accordance with the scheme prevalent at the relevant time. In our opinion, none of the aforesaid judgments lays down a sound law. 13. At first, to offer employment in public service out of turn without competitive test is in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is unconstitutional. The compassion, if necessary, should be confined to the terms of the scheme under which the compassionate employment is claimed or is offered. The Court of law should not go beyond the scheme. Unless a claim falls within the four corners of such scheme, the claim must be rejected. 14. The compassion, if necessary, should be confined to the terms of the scheme under which the compassionate employment is claimed or is offered. The Court of law should not go beyond the scheme. Unless a claim falls within the four corners of such scheme, the claim must be rejected. 14. The compassionate employment is offered to any dependent member of the family of the deceased Government servant who is eligible for appointment provided such member makes application for compassionate employment within three months from the date of the death of the employee concerned. Application can be made by any person from the family who was dependent upon the deceased and who is eligible for such appointment. From the record, it emerges that at the time of the death of the said Gajendraprasad, his widow was around 40 years of age and the eldest daughter was around 19 years of age. In other words, there were two adult members in the family of the deceased Gajendraprasad who could have been offered compassionate employment. Neither of the two applied for compassionate employment within three months as envisaged by the aforesaid Clause 8(A) of the scheme. They chose to wait till the writ petitioner, the son Ajaykumar who was then a minor, became major and could apply for compassionate employment. Thus, the delay in filing the application for compassionate employment was deliberate with a view to ensuring that the eldest son in the family got the employment on compassionate ground. Not that the family was destitute and that there was a real need for employment to mitigate hardship suffered by the family on account of the death of the said Gajendraprasad. 15. In our view, rejection of the writ petitioner's claim for compassionate employment was in consonance with the above referred Clause 8(B). The learned single Judge has failed to appreciate that the impugned order dated 8th October, 2005 was made in consonance with the scheme of compassionate employment contained in the Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2000 and did not call for interference. 16. Learned single Judge has also erred in interpreting the said Clause 8(B). Limitation of two years from the date the minor dependent attains majority, spoken by the learned single Judge is imaginary, not found in the scheme of 10th March, 2000. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. 16. Learned single Judge has also erred in interpreting the said Clause 8(B). Limitation of two years from the date the minor dependent attains majority, spoken by the learned single Judge is imaginary, not found in the scheme of 10th March, 2000. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. The impugned order dated 21st September, 2007 made by the learned single Judge in the above Special Civil Application No. 24360 of 2007 is quashed and set aside. The claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate employment is rejected. Special Civil Application No. 24360 of 2007 is dismissed. Appeal allowed.