Per Yaqoob, J.;— 1. The object of appointment on compassionate ground is by way of exception to the general rule so as to meet certain contingencies. An employee when dies in harness creates uncertain situation for the family particularly when such death leaves the family without any means of livelihood. Employment to one of the dependants of deceased eligible for employment is permissible under rules to the posts of class-III or Class-IV subject to the availability so as to protect the family from financial destitution. 2. In the instant case, one Shri Virender Sharma who was working as Sub Inspector in J&K Police, along with his wife lost life in a tragic road accident leaving behind two minor children who thereafter were solely to be looked after by respondent No. 1 Bimal Indu Sharma (brother of the deceased). It is in that context respondent No. 1 on compassionate basis was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector in the J&K Police Department under SRO 43 of 1994 in relaxation of age vide Government Order No. 420-GAD of 1994 dated 28.04.1994. 3. Said respondent Bimal Indu Sharma (brother of the deceased) in fact had applied for being appointed as Sub Inspector against the vacancy of deceased brother on compassionate grounds. The name of respondent No. 1 has been recommended for appointment as Sub Inspector but has been appointed against the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. 4. After accepting appointment as Assistant Sub Inspector, respondent No. 1 filed writ petition (SWP No. 192/1994) which is stated to have been disposed of with a direction for according consideration to his claim for appointment against the post of Sub Inspector, but on consideration, his claim for such post has been rejected. 5. After a gap of more than eight years, respondent No. 1 filed one more writ petition (SWP No. 669/03) projecting therein that respondents 4 to 6 (respondents 2 to 4 herein) were similarly situated, they have been appointed as Sub Inspectors. 6. It has been highlighted that respondent No. 4 (Madhu Bandral) was appointed on compassionate grounds as Sub Inspector vide Government Order No. Home-71 (Police) of 1989 dated 23.02.1989. Respondent No. 2 (Mohammad Ibrahim) filed writ petition and claimed the same treatment. 7. Said writ petition has been disposed of and in compliance thereof Government Order No. Home-321 (P) of 2002 dated 28.06.2002 was issued in terms whereof respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 (Mohammad Ibrahim) filed writ petition and claimed the same treatment. 7. Said writ petition has been disposed of and in compliance thereof Government Order No. Home-321 (P) of 2002 dated 28.06.2002 was issued in terms whereof respondent No. 2. (Mohammad Ibrahim) was appointed as Sub Inspector in J&K Police Department. Vide Government Order No. Home-369 (Police) of 1988 dated 07.10.1988, he has been deemed to have been appointed as Sub Inspector (Police) w.e.f. 21.04.1989 (i.e., the date on which Miss Madhu Bandral joined as Sub Inspector in the State Police in pursuance to Government Order No. Home-71(Po-lice) of 1989 dated 23.02.1989. 8- Picking thread from the said order, respondent No. 1 claimed that fresh cause-has accrued to him from the date he gained knowledge about aforesaid compassionate appointments to respondents 2 and 4. 9. Learned Single Judge while noticing the position of said Government Order No. Home-321(P) of 2002 dated 28.06.2002, has observed that respondent No. -(Arun Jamwal) appointed as Sub Inspector had less qualification than respondent No. 1 and State action should not be arbitrary and it has to be in consonance with rules of fair play. It is not stated anywhere that when petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector, no post of Sub Inspector was available. Finally, allowed the writ petition in the following terms :- "Therefore, I allow this writ petition and direct the respondents that the petitioner be deemed to be appointed as Sub Inspector in the J&K Police1 from 28.04.1994 along with all consequential benefits". 10. Dissatisfied with the judgement of learned Single Judge, State has come up with instant Letters Patent Appeal. 11. It is contended by the learned Sr. AAG that respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector on compassionate grounds in relaxation of age, which he accepted in the year 1994. Now after a gap of more than eight years, he has filed writ petition so as to claim appointment as Sub Inspector, which is not warranted. On one hand, his action is belated and on other hand he had filed writ petition (SWP No. 192 of 1994) which was disposed of with a direction to respondents to accord consideration to the claim of respondent No. 1, which on consideration, came to be rejected. Said order of rejection has not been challenged by respondent No. 1. On one hand, his action is belated and on other hand he had filed writ petition (SWP No. 192 of 1994) which was disposed of with a direction to respondents to accord consideration to the claim of respondent No. 1, which on consideration, came to be rejected. Said order of rejection has not been challenged by respondent No. 1. Now after a gap of eight years, he has filed writ petition (SWP No. 669/2003) on identical grounds by projecting that fresh cause has accrued to him in view of Govt. order dated 28.06.2002 by adding that he has accepted the post of Assistant Sub Inspector due to the circumstances, which were beyond his control. 12. The claim of respondent No. 1 for compassionate appointment stands finalised when he was offered appointment of Assistant Sub Inspector in relaxation of age, which he accepted and joined. Secondly/he had filed writ petition in the year 1994 itself but failed. Now after a gap of eight years, he again claims appointment as Sub Inspector. 13. When respondent No. 1 had accepted appointment as Assistant Sub Inspector and then had filed writ petition in the year 1994 itself where-under right to claim higher post ultimately has been rejected, was it still open for him to file fresh writ petition that too after a gap of eight years?. The answer has to be 'No', because he has accepted appointment then had filed writ petition and in compliance to the direction issued in the said writ petition, his case was considered and rejected, which order of rejection has not been challenged, meaning thereby he was satisfied, therefore, he shall now be estopped for claiming relief which has already been declined to him. 14. In a case State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali reported in (1994) 4 SCC 448 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :- ".....In fact, the respondent did not object to his appointment as a clerk and his claim for consideration for the post of teacher was one year after his appointment. Thus, appointment on compassionate ground as per scheme had been completed.." 15. Apply said observation to the present case, it is clear that respondent No. 1 accepted the appointment order as Assistant Sub Inspector and joined the post, therefore, process for compassionate appointment in his favour had come to an end. 16. Thus, appointment on compassionate ground as per scheme had been completed.." 15. Apply said observation to the present case, it is clear that respondent No. 1 accepted the appointment order as Assistant Sub Inspector and joined the post, therefore, process for compassionate appointment in his favour had come to an end. 16. Government Order dated 28.06.2002, whether is perfectly in consonance with law or not, is not required to be commented upon. Respondent No. 1 could not claim benefit of that order, which has been issued in compliance to the orders of the Court. Why and under what circumstances, appellants have not challenged that order or have implemented that order, is not open for comment but respondent No. 1 could not claim relief on parity basis when his claim for higher post stands already closed. 17. Learned Single Judge in the judgement has noticed that respondent No. 5-Arun Jamwal, (respondent No. 3 herein), was less qualified than petitioner-Bimal Indu Sharma (respondent No. 1 herein), therefore, when said Arun Jamwal was appointed as Sub Inspector, same treatment should have been given to respondent No. 1, but it has not been taken note of that order dated 11.02.1993 was pleaded challenged in the earlier writ petition (SWP No. 192/94), and even might have been adjudicated, still in pursuance of the direction of the Court passed in that writ petition (SWP No. 192/94), the case of respondent No. 1 was considered and rejected, which consideration has not been challenged by him. Now at this stage, when said writ petition of respondent No. 1 was disposed of, he cannot again claim benefit on the basis of order dated 11.02.1993. 18. It is true that fair play is soul of any State action and the same has to be respected. Offering appointment on compassionate basis has to be in consonance with rules. Any action de hors the rules and which may favour a particular person, cannot form the base for grant of same relief to another similarly situated aspirant. When the State action is not in consonance with the rules, proper course for the aggrieved candidate is to challenge that action, and not to claim parity on that count. 19. SRO 43 of 1994 as notified in essence provides for appointment on compassionate grounds. Compassionate appointment has an object as clearly indicated in the beginning of the judgement. When the State action is not in consonance with the rules, proper course for the aggrieved candidate is to challenge that action, and not to claim parity on that count. 19. SRO 43 of 1994 as notified in essence provides for appointment on compassionate grounds. Compassionate appointment has an object as clearly indicated in the beginning of the judgement. Such type of appointment is an exception to the general rule governing mode and method of appointment. For providing compassionate appointment, relaxation of qualification and relaxation of age, is permissible so as to achieve the object, but it does not provide for appointment against a post, which shall not be permissible under rules. A seeker of compassionate appointment has no right to claim the higher post. In this connection, it shall be quite relevant to quote as to what has been observed in the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Harayana and others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 :- The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and met-it. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are 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 expectations, and the Change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment, which are suddenly upturned. 20. The direction of learned Single Judge to the effect, that respondent shall be deemed to be appointed as Sub Inspector in J&K Police w.e.f. 28.04.1994 along with all consequential benefits is not permissible under law. In this view, I am fortified by the judgement rendered by the State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali reported in (1994)4 SCC 448 . The direction of learned Single Judge to the effect, that respondent shall be deemed to be appointed as Sub Inspector in J&K Police w.e.f. 28.04.1994 along with all consequential benefits is not permissible under law. In this view, I am fortified by the judgement rendered by the State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali reported in (1994)4 SCC 448 . It shall be relevant to quote following portion from para No. 16: ".......issuing a direction to appoint the respondent within three months when direct recruitment is not available, is unsupportable. The High Court could have merely directed consideration of the claim of the respondent in accordance with the rules. It cannot direct appointment. Such a direction does not fall within the scope of mandamus. Judicial review, it has been repeatedly emphasized, is directed against the decision-making process and not against the decision itself;.." 21. Learned Senior AAG further contended that respondent No. 1 was not at all entitled to compassionate appointment as he was not dependent upon the deceased, but since the authority has noticed that the deceased along with his wife died in road accident leaving behind two minor children, who were taken care of by respondent No. 1 and it is in that context, respondent No. 1 was appointed on compassionate ground in relaxation of age with the sole object of saving two minor children of the deceased from destitution. 22. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 tried to project that respondent No. 1 being a law graduate was suitable for the post of Sub Inspector. Claim of respondent No. 1 for higher post, when the same has been closed in the year 1994 itself, now coming to the Court after eight years by projecting that fresh cause has accrued in view of Govt. Order dated 28.06.2002, is totally unwarranted. Secondly, parity can be claimed when benefit granted to the similarly situated person has been granted in accordance with law. If benefit is not granted in accordance with the law and any action or granting such benefit to the similarly situated person shall not justify grant of such relief to any other person. It was for the aggrieved party at the relevant point of time to challenge the benefit given to the similarly situated person. 23. Viewed thus, judgement impugned dated 10.11.2008 passed in SWP No. 669/2003 is not sustainable, as such, set aside. Resultantly, writ petition dismissed. It was for the aggrieved party at the relevant point of time to challenge the benefit given to the similarly situated person. 23. Viewed thus, judgement impugned dated 10.11.2008 passed in SWP No. 669/2003 is not sustainable, as such, set aside. Resultantly, writ petition dismissed. Appeal succeeds and disposed of as above along connected CMA No. 103/2009.