Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioners' father died in the year 1969. At that time the petitioner was six months' old. The petitioner moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground upon reaching the age of the majority. This application has been rejected by the impugned order against which the present writ petition has been filed. 3. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, 1994(4) SCC 138 : (1994 AIR SCW 2305), the Supreme Court held, that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment, and that, it is merely an exception to the requirement of law keeping in view the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. The Supreme Court held, that the object of compassionate appointment was to enable the family to get over the sudden financial crisis. The Supreme Court went further to hold, that compassionate appointment could not be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and that the very purpose of compassionate appointment was to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased. 4. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the mere fact, that the petitioner has survived from 1989 till the age of majority, is an indication by itself that there was no financial crisis in his family which would warrant consideration for an appointment on compassionate ground. The appointment on compassionate ground is not a vested right of the family of the deceased, but, is only a discretionary right given to the employers to give an appointment to a member of the family of the deceased in order to tide over the family crisis. 5. In the instant case, no such financial crisis has been shown nor was in existence. From the record, the Court also finds, that the mother of the petitioner was offered an appointment, but, she declined to accept. Consequently, no relief can be given to the petitioner. 6. 5. In the instant case, no such financial crisis has been shown nor was in existence. From the record, the Court also finds, that the mother of the petitioner was offered an appointment, but, she declined to accept. Consequently, no relief can be given to the petitioner. 6. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Vivek Yadav v. State of U.P., 2010 (5) ALJ 325, Subhash Yadav v. State of U.P. (2011) 1 UPLBEC 494 and Umesh Chandra Sharma, Jagdish Chandra Sharma v. State of U.P., 2006 (1) AWC 273 : (2006 (3) ALJ (NOC) 457), are distinguishable and are not applicable to the present facts of the case. 7. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. _____________