JUDGMENT Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—The appellants, 14 in number, filed a joint writ petition (CWP No.7090/2010) stating the grievance that though they were accorded appointment on compassionate grounds by the respondent – Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (‘the Nigam’) but on the post of Helper, which is lower than the post of LDC/Consumer Complaint Clerk they were entitled to; and were discriminated against female candidates. 2. The learned Single Judge of this Court has found no case worth consideration with reference to the principles that appointment on compa-ssionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right; and further, with reference to the fact that the petitioners accepted the appointment on the post of Helper with open eyes and now, they were seeking appointment on higher post after a long lapse of time. The learned Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petition with a short order dated 19.7.2013 which reads as under:- “Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the forteen employees of the respondent Jodhpur Vidyut Viteran Nigam Ltd who are working on the post of Helper. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although they were possessing qualification for the post of LDC/Consumer Complaint Clerk, they were provided appointment on lower post of helper under the dependant Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment was made on a lower post while discriminating their case on illegal premises that higher post is only made for women candidates and not for the male candidates, therefore, against the discriminatory action of the respondents, they are entitled for direction to the respondent to provide appointment on a higher post which is LDC/Consumer Complaint Clerk. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that discrimination has been practicized by the respondent, therefore, after lapse of ten years or more, still petitioners are having right for appointment on higher post because their case was discriminated on illegal grounds. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that appointment made on compassionate ground is only to meet out the financial crisis of deceased employees that appointment (sic.) and appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right because it is a mercy given by the employer by way of giving complete goodbye to the procedure laid down under the Rules. Here in this case, as per counsel for the respondents, petitioner cannot claim appointment on higher post. The appointment can be given on availability of vacancies as per requirements of respondent employer. The petitioners with open eyes accepted the appointment and are working for last many years, therefore, at this stage, contention of petitioner that there is right created in their favour is totally unfounded. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘State of Rajasthan vs. Chandra Narain Verma reported in (1994) 2 SCC 752 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right so also it is choice of employer to provide appointment as per guidelines and rules and availability of vacancies. Here in this case, the petitioners accepted the appointment with open eyes on the post of Helper and now the petitioners are claiming appointment on higher post after a lapse of so many years, therefore, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Narain Verma (Supra), no interference is called for in this writ petition, therefore, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.” 3. Seeking to question the order aforesaid, the writ-petitioners have filed this intra-court appeal. It has strenuously been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that at the time of affording compassionate appointment, the respondents withheld the factual position that the appellants were eligible for appointment on the post of LDC/Consumer Complaint Clerk by conveying to them that such a post was meant only for female candidates. It is submitted that on one hand, the respondents would take the stand that post of LDC/Consumer Complaint Clerk is only for female candidates who are not considered appropriate for the post of Technical Helper but on the other hand, they had been affording appointment to the female candidates on the post of Technical Helper too. The copies of orders dated 02.07.2012 and 06.03.2013 are sought to be referred in this regard with an additional affidavit 4. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the record, we are at one with the learned Single Judge that the writ petition being totally bereft of substance was required to be dismissed. 5. The copies of orders dated 02.07.2012 and 06.03.2013 are sought to be referred in this regard with an additional affidavit 4. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the record, we are at one with the learned Single Judge that the writ petition being totally bereft of substance was required to be dismissed. 5. Compassionate appointment, an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the immediate financial problems, if so faced by the bereaved family of a deceased employee. The very object of providing compassionate appointment to a dependent of the deceased employee who dies in harness is to relieve the family of hardship and distress caused due to sudden demise of its bread-earner. Such provisions for compassionate appointment, by their very nature, are in exception to the general procedure prescribed for making appointments; and are required to be applied while keeping in view the fact that by making such appointments, other eligible persons are deprived of their chance to seek employment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Education (Secondary) vs. Pushpendra Kumar : (1998) 5 SCC 192 has pointed out: “The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to 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 for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependent of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision. Care has, therefore, to be taken that provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependent of a deceased employee.” 6. Compassionate appointment is not that of a vested right, rather it is a concession and not a right (vide Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors. : (2008) 15 SCC 560 ). Moreover, in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Umrao Singh: (1994) 6 SCC 560 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that once a compassionate appointment is given and accepted, the right to such appointment was consummated and any further consideration for a higher post on the ground of compassion would not arise. In that case, the respondent’s father died in harness while working as Sub-Inspector, CID (Special Branch) on 16.03.1988. The respondent filed an application on 08.04.1988 for his appointment on compassionate ground; and he was appointed to the post of LDC. In the given fact situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed,- “…….Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of “endless compassion…..” The Hon'ble Supreme Court further said,- “Therefore, once the right has consummated as we indicated earlier, any further or second consideration for a higher post on the ground of compassion would not arise.” Applying the principles aforesaid to the facts of the present case, we are unable to find any reason wherefor the appellants could have been granted the relief as claimed. 7. 7. It appears that at the relevant time, when the appellants were given appointment on compassionate grounds, the respondent-Nigam, or its predecessor Rajasthan State Electricity Board, had the Rules/Instructions in place carrying terms and conditions for appointment of the dependents of the deceased employee on compassionate basis; and therein, looking to the technical requirements as also manual/field work requirements, it was a decision taken that the male dependents of the deceased employees would be considered for field work whereas female dependents would be considered for office work. Nothing of discrimination or unreasonableness is seen in this nature classification, looking to the nature of duties and job profiles. 8. Apart from the baselessness of the claim of the appellants, we find that even otherwise, such a claim was sought to be made after a long and inordinate delay and could not have been entertained. It is noticed from the particulars given that appellant No.1 was appointed in the year 1997 whereas the appellant No.12 was appointed in the year 2000. The appellants Nos.3, 5 and 11 were appointed in the year 2002; the appellant No.10 was appointed in the year 2003; the appellants Nos.4 and 9 were appointed in the year 2004; the appellant No.2 was appointed in the year 2005; and other appellants were appointed in the year 2006. However, the joint writ petition making a claim for appointment on higher post was filed only in the year 2010. 9. In our view, after accepting appointment on compassionate grounds from the year 1997 to the year 2006, the appellants could not have been acceded liberty to make a claim for higher post by filing the petition in the year 2010. The stale claim as made by the appellants after having put in substantial number of years in service could have only been rejected. 10. The submissions sought to be made by filing an additional affidavit remain equally without substance. If while according regular appointments later in the years 2012 and 2013, the respondents have selected some of the female candidates on the post of Technical Helper, it would hardly enure to the benefit of the appellants who were, as noticed, given the appointment only on compassionate grounds and that too, from the year 1997 to the year 2006. 11. If while according regular appointments later in the years 2012 and 2013, the respondents have selected some of the female candidates on the post of Technical Helper, it would hardly enure to the benefit of the appellants who were, as noticed, given the appointment only on compassionate grounds and that too, from the year 1997 to the year 2006. 11. In the passing, we may observe that the very attempt on the part of the petitioners-appellants in filing the joint writ petition where the persons appointed on different compassionate grounds and, obviously, on different dates ranging from the year 1997 to 2006, joined together, was itself seriously questionable. The claim of a person appointed about a decade before filing of the petition was obviously too belated and was required to be rejected on this ground alone. Be that as it may, it does not appear necessary to dilate much on this flaw in the frame of the petition as in our view, on merits, the appellants had no case and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.