Judgment A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal at admission stage with the consent of parties. 2. This writ petition is filed by the ward of an ex-policeman for appointment on compassionate ground after his father retired premature on medical grounds, against the orders of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which has dismissed his Original Application No.606/2012. 3. The claim of the petitioner is as follows:- (a) Bhimrao Munjal, the father of petitioner Ganesh was working as Head Constable and retired from Government service on medical grounds w.e.f. 2.1.2011. At the relevant time, the Maharashtra Police Constables (Recruitment) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "2006 Rules" for short), provided in Rule 3(2)(D) mode of compassionate appointments to be given to wards of Police employees, who were either reported missing or retired on medical grounds or died in harness. Such wards were being directly given appointments on fulfilling the requirements of physical eligibilities as per the then prevailing rules, without requiring them to appear for physical test, written test or interview. This was done as per the 2006 Rules and also in view of specific provision made to that effect by the State vide Government Resolution dated 23.2.2004, which had dispensed with such test or interview. The petitioner has referred to some of the appointments thus made. The petitioner refers to application dated 11.3.2011 filed by his father for his appointment. (b) On 16.6.2011, the State issued fresh set of Maharashtra Police Constables (Recruitment) Rules, 2011 (hereafter referred to as "2011 Rules" for short), in supercession of the 2006 Rules. According to petitioner, the 2011 Rules became effective only from 16.6.2011 and were not applicable retrospectively. In the 2006 Rules, wards of police employees who were missing or who retired on medical grounds, were eligible for compassionate appointment, but 2011 Rules made provision only for wards of Police employees who died in harness. No doubt, the 2011 Rules saved benefits of relaxation in height and chest measurement to wards of police employees reported missing or retired on medical grounds while appointing them as Police Constables at the time of general recruitment. No doubt, the 2011 Rules saved benefits of relaxation in height and chest measurement to wards of police employees reported missing or retired on medical grounds while appointing them as Police Constables at the time of general recruitment. These 2011 Rules were influenced by Government Resolution dated 22.8.2005 of General Administration Department which had cancelled previous practice of giving compassionate appointments towards/ close relatives of Government employees who had retired on medical grounds and had continued the facility only for employees who had died in harness. It is claimed that, in spite of such earlier Government Resolution, there were instances of straightway appointments as Police Constable on compassionate ground subject to fulfillment of height and chest measurement. According to petitioner, this was practice which was correctly followed. (c) After the application (by father of petitioner), particulars were called. However, subsequently, the respondent No.3 - Superintendent of Police, Beed informed vide letter dated 6.9.2011 that as per Police Recruitment Rules of 2011, there would be relaxation in respect of height and chest measurement but it would be necessary to appear for physical test and written test. Although the applications of petitioner and other two persons were filed earlier, the 2011 Rules were sought to be enforced. Father of petitioner raised grievance vide letter dated 23.9.2011 claiming appointment of petitioner as Police Constable. However, Additional Director General of Police, Mumbai (respondent No. 2) rejected the request vide letter dated 5.10.2011 applying 2011 Rules, requiring the petitioner to undergo physical and written test. (d) The petitioner and other two persons approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad vide Original Application No.798/2011. Petition gives details as to the order passed in that Original Application by the Administrative Tribunal on 18.1.2012. According to petitioner, the Tribunal had disposed the Original Application, directing the respondents to decide the application of petitioner on its own merits and communicate the result. According to the petitioner, the Original Application had virtually been allowed, however, the respondents wrongly and incorrectly interpreted the directions, and vide letter dated 13/17.7.2012, informed the petitioner that as per Government Resolution dated 22.8.2005, compassionate appointment to wards of employees who have retired on medical grounds could not be given and now only wards of employees who have died in harness could be given compassionate appointment. (e) The petitioner filed another Original Application No. 606/2012 challenging the communication dated 13/17.7.2012 and sought quashment of the same and appointment as Police Constable on compassionate grounds, without going through physical and written test. Vide order dated 28.8.2013, the Administrative Tribunal rejected the Original Application, taking contradictory view to its earlier directions in Original Application No. 798/2011 and held that 2011 Rules read with Government Resolution dated 22.8.2005 were applicable, and the benefit could not be claimed as sought by the petitioner. Thus, the petition has been filed, taking exception to the orders passed, and petitioner claims compassionate appointment as Police Constable in the light of practice and procedure and methodology of 2006 Rules read with Government Resolution dated 23.2.2004 without requiring him to appear for physical and written test and oral interview. 4. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Learned counsel for petitioner has taken us through the earlier and present rules as well as two Government Resolutions of 2004 and 2005 and the contentions as raised in the petition were agitated. 5. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, at the time when father of petitioner retired on medical grounds, 2006 Rules were applicable and so, the same Rules need to be applied. According to him, the 2011 Rules did away with compassionate appointment as Police Constable for the wards of Police employees who retired on medical grounds. It is claimed that, in spite of new Rules, there were instances when there were direct appointments without requirement of undergoing the recruitment process. It has been argued that, the impugned judgment in the Original Application No.606/2012 deserves to be set aside as in Original Application No.798/2011, the Administrative Tribunal had ruled in favour of petitioner for application of the earlier rules and earlier Government Resolution dated 23.2.2004. 6. The 2006 Rules, Rule 3(2) had the Heading "Relaxation in educational and physical qualifications". Below the same there was sub-heading (D) of "Recruitment on compassionate ground". It provided that, one son or daughter of a policeman who has been missing or has been retired on compassionate ground on the basis of medical certificate due to ill health or has died while in service may be called for the police "recruitment" and he or she may get the relaxation in respect of physical qualifications. It provided that, one son or daughter of a policeman who has been missing or has been retired on compassionate ground on the basis of medical certificate due to ill health or has died while in service may be called for the police "recruitment" and he or she may get the relaxation in respect of physical qualifications. The provision was basically part of recruitment rules and the sub-head referred to "recruitment" on compassionate basis. The only concession given was for height and chest measurements. The rule did not say that direct appointment could be made. The Rules show that, for appointment as Police Constable, the recruitment procedure as laid down has to be followed. This being so, relaxation or exemption, if any, has to be made only as per rules and if required, by amendment. 7. The 2011 Rules came into force w.e.f. 16.6.2011 in supersession of the 2006 Rules. Naturally, any recruitment on and after 16.6.2011 for the post of Police Constable could be only as per these rules and when specially 2006 Rules had been superseded, the earlier rules cannot be applied. In these 2011 Rules, Rule 3(2)(D) was modified. The sub-heading was changed to "Policeman's family--". The modified rule now provides for giving relaxation in height and chest measurement for wards of policemen who are missing or have retired on medical grounds. This rule deleted reference to wards of employees who have died while in service. A new separate rule has been added as Rule 9, relating to "Recruitment on compassionate ground", and the rule mentions that, the compassionate appointment scheme will be adopted as per the orders issued by General Administration Department from time to time. But the eligible candidate may get the relaxation in respect of physical qualifications as mentioned. Thus, even for such candidates, the relaxations are, as prescribed. 8. The changes made in 2011 Rules are obvious. It shows that the legislature wants to make a difference between the employees who have died in harness and those who are reported missing or have retired on medical grounds. 9. The petitioner wants to rely on Government Resolution dated 23.2.2004 which had specifically provided that wards of police being appointed on compassionate grounds as Police Constable may not be subjected to ground test or written test or interview. 10. 9. The petitioner wants to rely on Government Resolution dated 23.2.2004 which had specifically provided that wards of police being appointed on compassionate grounds as Police Constable may not be subjected to ground test or written test or interview. 10. The Government of Maharashtra in General Administration Department issued another Government Resolution dated 22.8.2005 referring to directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, that appointments on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as hereditary rights. Inter-alia, the Government Resolution directed that appointments to Group 'C' and Group 'D' categories cannot be made for wards of employees who have retired on medical grounds. Compassionate appointments could be given in Group 'C' and Group 'D' categories only when death in harness takes place. In spite of such Government Resolution dated 22.8.2005, the petitioner is going on insisting that Government Resolution dated 23.2.2004 may be applied and he should be directly appointed on compassionate grounds applying 2006 Rules. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to read the orders of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, passed in the earlier Original Application No.798/2011 to say that there were directions to appoint the petitioner, applying old rules, but still the respondents did not comply. In the order now impugned in Original Application No. 606/2012, the Administrative Tribunal appears to have gone through all the details and these contentions raised by the petitioner and appropriately answered the contentions. The Administrative Tribunal referred to the earlier orders in para 13 of the judgment and came to the conclusion (in para 16) that the observations of the Tribunal in the earlier orders were not for deciding the application of the applicants on basis of Government Resolution dated 23.2.2004 but to decide the same on its own merits. We do not find error in the approach of the Administrative Tribunal in its judgment dated 28.8.2013 in Original Application No.606/2012. The earlier orders in Original Application No.798/2011 in para 3 of the order dated 18.1.2012 recorded that the applicant had approached the Tribunal in confused state of mind and the Tribunal then went on to refer to the different aspects and remitted back the matter asking the respondents to consider the applications on their own merits. 12. The other argument that 7 other persons were appointed on compassionate ground though retired for medical reasons in spite of Government Resolution dated 22.8.2005 has also been answered by the Tribunal. 12. The other argument that 7 other persons were appointed on compassionate ground though retired for medical reasons in spite of Government Resolution dated 22.8.2005 has also been answered by the Tribunal. In para 17 of its judgment, the Tribunal has rightly recorded that if there has been appointment in breach of the Government Resolution dated 22.8.2005, the same cannot be ground for the petitioner to claim parity. We find that, wrongful acts do not become a legal precedent. Action against the wrongful act as wrong doers at the most may be required to be taken rather than making that a precedent. There is no right of equality for wrongful acts. 13. Record shows that, the petitioner did not himself apply for the compassionate appointment. The applications were made by his father. The petitioner was shown as 18 years of age when Original Application No.798/2011 was filed and even now when Writ Petition is filed at the end of 2013, his age is shown only as 19 years. He has not put on record his date of birth. Record does not show that before Rules of 2011 came into force, petitioner had attained the age of 18 years. Apart from this, even on merits, in our view, if a person is to be appointed as a Police Constable, other than relaxation as provided, it is in public interest that he should go through the recruitment process as per rules to see if he/she is eligible and fit for being appointed as Police Constable. Looking to nature of duties of Police Constables, there cannot be compromise with fitness of such employees, even if it is to be a compassionate appointment. It is different if the compassionate appointment is for any other Group 'D' post like that of Peon, when appointment is to be made due to death in harness. 14. In the matter of State Bank of India Vs. Raj Kumar, [ reported in (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 661] the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to deal with State Bank of India Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount as per its terms. In the matter before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent's mother had made application dated 6.6.2005 and 14.6.2005 for appointment of the respondent on compassionate ground. In the matter before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent's mother had made application dated 6.6.2005 and 14.6.2005 for appointment of the respondent on compassionate ground. When the applications were being processed and verified, the new scheme came into force on 4.8.2005 and it was no longer permissible after the new scheme to make compassionate appointment. The Bank advised the family of the deceased to make application for ex-gratia payment, however, the respondent filed Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court. The Allahabad High Court directed the State Bank to consider the case of the respondents for appointment on compassionate ground holding that the old scheme applied and the new scheme was only prospective in operation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 8 of the judgment as under:- "8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependents of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/ withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant." (Emphasis supplied) 15. Keeping above in view, it is quite apparent that the petitioner cannot be permitted to resort to old 2006 Rules and Government Resolution dated 23.2.2004 overlooking the subsequent 2011 Rules and Government Resolution dated 22.8.2005. 16. Keeping above in view, it is quite apparent that the petitioner cannot be permitted to resort to old 2006 Rules and Government Resolution dated 23.2.2004 overlooking the subsequent 2011 Rules and Government Resolution dated 22.8.2005. 16. The learned counsel for petitioner referred to para 13 of the judgment in the matter of Raj Kumar (supra), wherein observations were as under:- "Further, where the earlier scheme is abolished and the new scheme which replaces it specifically provides that all pending applications will be considered only in terms of the new scheme, then the new scheme alone will apply. As compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right, the employer may wind up the scheme or modify the scheme at any time depending upon its policies, financial capacity and availability of posts." 17. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the 2011 Rules do not say that after coming into force of these Rules, the earlier applications will have to be considered only as per these rules. We find that the learned counsel is reading the paragraph in isolation and the judgment has to be read as a whole. Para 8 of the judgment clearly lays down that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, "unless saved". When the 2011 Rules are specifically recording that they are being issued in supersession of 2006 Rules, it cannot be accepted that any new recruitment could be made de hors the 2011 Rules. Unless there was a saving clause, earlier applications claiming benefits under old rules cannot be saved. 18. We find that petitioner is not entitle for appointment on compassionate ground as Rules of 2011 do not cover wards of employees retired on medical grounds for compassionate appointment. Government Resolution dated 22.8.2005 is also in public interest, and ensures that, compassionate appointments do not become hereditary office. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar, it is clear that there is no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner. There is no merit in the writ petition. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. 19. The Writ Petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.