Judgment : 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is the son of late Baby Saroja, who was working as S.G.Teacher in the Municipal School at Salem. 3. The present writ petition arose out of O.A.No.2236 of 2001 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking for a direction to the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner on account of the death of his mother. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.48301 of 2006. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit, dated 11.7.2001. The petitioners mother died in harness as early as 06.06.1994. 4. By the impugned order dated 8.2.2001, it was stated that on the date of her death, he had crossed 30 years and he had not produced any certificate to show that the income for the family is inadequate to maintain the family. His earlier request was also rejected by second respondent as early as 2.7.1998. This is in accordance with the orders of the Government in the matter of employment assistance. 5. In State of Haryana and others v. Rani Devi and another [ AIR 1996 SC 2445 : 1996 (5) SCC 308 ], the Supreme Court while examining the object of compassionate appointment pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was a dependant of the deceased employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In the aforesaid case, it was held that if the scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground is extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices, then such scheme cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. 6. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In the aforesaid case, it was held that if the scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground is extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices, then such scheme cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. 6. In the decision reported in 1994 (2) SCC 718 : 1994 – II- LLJ – 173 [Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar (Mrs.) and another], it was pointed out that the High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointment on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplates such appointment. 7. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others [ 1994 (4) SCC 138 : 1995–I– LLJ 798], it was noted that as a rule in public service, appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of application and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. 8. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of India and others [ AIR 1989 SC 1976 : 1989 (4) SCC 468 : 1990 – I – LLJ – 169], it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any 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. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisages specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. 9. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisages specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. 9. In State of U.P. and others v. Paras Nath [ AIR 1998 SC 2612 : 1998 (2) SCC 412 : 1992 – II – LLJ 454, it was held that the purpose of providing employment to the dependant of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointments. 10. In Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, [ (2004) 7 SCC 265 ], the Supreme Court observed that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement of making appointments on open invitation of application on merits. The basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. 11. In State of Haryana and others v. Rani Devi and another (cited supra), the Supreme Court observed as follows: “It was also impressed that appointments on compassionate ground cannot be made after lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules because the right to such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.” 12. It is, thus, clear that the Courts cannot direct appointments on compassionate grounds de hors the provisions of the Scheme in force governed by rules / regulations / instructions. If in a given case, the department of the Government concerned declines, as a matter of policy, not to deviate from the mandate of the provisions underlying the Scheme and refuses to relax the stipulation in respect of ceiling fixed therein, the Courts cannot compel the authorities to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular way and that too, by relaxing the essential conditions, when no grievance of violation of substantial rights of parties could be held to have been provided otherwise. The purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointments. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after the death of the employee. The reason for making compassionate appointment, which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a Government servant who dies in harness when there is no other earning member in the family. 13. In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others [ (2000) 7 SCC 192 ], the Supreme Court has expressly held that there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the applicant becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief. An application made after the period stipulated under the scheme is not maintainable, and it is not permissible to hold that such application could be made after attaining majority. 14. In the light of the above binding precedents of the Supreme Court, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.