JUDGMENT Mr. M.M. Kumar, ACG. C.J.:- The short issue involved in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether petitioner No. 2 is entitled for compassionate appointment or not. 2. The facts are not in dispute. On 12.12.1985, Shri Lakhmi Chand, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2, joined the service as a Class IV employee in the office of Chief Election Officer, Haryana-respondent No. 2. On 18.8.2003 he died in harness. After the death of her husband, petitioner No. 1 approached respondent No. 2 for appointment of petitioner No. 2 as a Sweeper on compassionate ground. She was told that petitioner No. 2 could not be appointed because at that point of time he did not possess the minimum qualification of 8th Class Examination. On 1.9.2003 (P-2), petitioner No. 1 submitted an application seeking appointment of petitioner No. 2 as a Sweeper on contract basis till the time he pass the 8th Class examination. On 19.2.2004 (P-3), another application was submitted by petitioner No. 1 for relaxation of the condition of educational qualification and to appoint petitioner No. 2 on compassionate basis. The matter was referred to the Government with the request to grant relaxation in the educational qualification but the same was rejected because under Rule 18 of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (for brevity, ‘the 2003 Rules’) it was specifically provided that no relaxation in any provision of the rules could be granted. Accordingly, vide communication dated 8.9.2004, petitioner No. 1 was informed that her son-petitioner No. 2 is required to acquire the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Sweeper and no relaxation could be given (P-4). 3. Petitioner No. 2 resumed his studies and passed 8th Class examination from Saraswati Vidya Peeth, Merrut, on 10.8.2006 (P-5). On 14.8.2006/6.9.2006, petitioner No. 1 sent an application to the respondent department informing that her son-petitioner No. 2 has passed the 8th Class examination, therefore, he may be appointed as Sweeper. However, respondent No. 2 raised doubts about the affiliation of Sarswati Vidya Peeth and asked petitioner No. 1 to submit original certificate for verification and consideration, vide letter dated 30.8.2006 (P-6). On 6.9.2006, petitioner No. 2 informed respondent No. 2 that he would submit the original certificate as and when the same is received by him (P-7). However, respondent No. 2 raised doubts about the affiliation of Sarswati Vidya Peeth and asked petitioner No. 1 to submit original certificate for verification and consideration, vide letter dated 30.8.2006 (P-6). On 6.9.2006, petitioner No. 2 informed respondent No. 2 that he would submit the original certificate as and when the same is received by him (P-7). The original certificate was ultimately submitted by him on 23.4.2007 (P-8). For verification of the Middle Class Certificate, the Chief Election Officer, Haryana wrote a letter dated 18.5.2007 to the Regional Secretary, Middle Education Board, Merrut (P-10), who vide his letter dated 10.1.2008 authenticated the said certificate (P-11). On 29.1.2008 (P-12), petitioner No. 1 reiterated her request for appointment of petitioner No. 2. However, on 18.2.2008, respondent No. 2 informed petitioner No. 1 that the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (for brevity, ‘the 2006 Rules’) were implemented w.e.f. 1.8.2006 and compassionate appointment were stopped. She was asked to submit the application for compassionate assistance as per 2006 Rules (P-13). On 29.2.2008, petitioner No. 1 again represented to the respondents that her case ought to have been considered under the 2003 Rules instead of the 2006 Rules (P-14). 4. Faced with the above, the petitioners filed CWP No. 18104 of 2008 before this Court, which was disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 20.10.2008 directing respondent No. 2 to take a final decision on the representation of the petitioners by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receiving a copy of the order (P-15). On 26.11.2008, the representation of the petitioners has been rejected by applying the 2006 Rules. The relevant part of the order dated 26.11.2008 (P-17) is extracted as under:- “ ……As has been explained in the foregoing paras, that at the time of death of the deceased the ex-gratia rules of 2003 were applicable under which the provision of making ex-gratia appointment was there, but no family member of late Sh. Lakhmi Chand was eligible for appointment to any post in the department as not having the required qualification for appointment to any of the post. Lakhmi Chand was eligible for appointment to any post in the department as not having the required qualification for appointment to any of the post. While the applicant informed the department regarding acquiring the eligible qualifications i.e. passing of middle standard examination the new rules, “The Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006” came in force and as per rule 6 of these rules all the pending cases of ex-gratia assistance shall be covered under these rules. However, the department referred the case to the Government for appointment under ex-gratia rules as special case, but the Government advised the department to take further necessary action in the matter as per policy of the Government. In view of the above facts and circumstances the request dated 29.2.2008 of Smt. Darshna Devi again considered and found that she has raised the same contention as made earlier in the representations mentioned in the foregoing paras and the department had considered thoroughly the same and rejected as being not maintainable. So I am of the considered view that the contention raised by the applicant in the representation under consideration does not have any force as having no additional substantial facts and grounds and hence same is rejected accordingly.” 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the paper book with their able assistance. In the present case the bread winner of the family, namely, Shri Lakhmi Chand died on 18.8.2003. Petitioner No. 2 was not eligible to be appointed because he was lacking the minimum educational qualification of Middle pass, which he acquired on 10.8.2006. The object of compassionate appointment is to meet the sudden crisis on account of death or invalidation of the bread winner of the family. Such an appointment cannot be secured as a matter of right as it is an exception to Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The question whether the 2003 Rules or the 2006 Rules would apply, pale into insignificance for the reason that the tragedy faced by the family is already over by afflux of time. Such an appointment cannot be secured as a matter of right as it is an exception to Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The question whether the 2003 Rules or the 2006 Rules would apply, pale into insignificance for the reason that the tragedy faced by the family is already over by afflux of time. The claim for compassionate appointment would not survive after such a long time, as per the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , because the immediate urgency created by death of Shri Lakhmi Chand does not exist now. It is well settled that the compassionate appointment is not a mode of entry into service but it is only to help the surviving members of the family to overcome sudden financial crises created by the sudden death of bread winner, as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 3 SCC 394 and National Hydro Electric Power Corpn. v. Nanak Chand, (2004) 12 SCC 487 . 6. As a sequel to the above discussion, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed.