JUDGMENT : S.C. Parija, J. - This writ petition has been filed challenging the inaction of the opposite parties in not considering the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in spite of several representations. The case of the petitioner as detailed in the writ petition, is that his father, namely, Prafulla Ch. Pattnaik, while working as Junior Manager Scale-I, under the opposite parties-Bank, died on 25.9.2000, clue to chronic renal failure, after prolonged treatment. As the father of the petitioner was the only bread-earner of the family and the family had no other source of income, the petitioner submitted application dated 1.12.2000 in the prescribed format, for employment on compassionate ground, as per Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspire of repeated representations, the opposite parties Bank have not provided employment to him on compassionate ground. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the case of a similarly situated employee of the Bank, namely, Mahesh Mallick, who also died in the year 2000, the Bank has provided appointment to his wife on compassionate ground since 27.2.2004. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to direct the opposite parties-Bank to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner within a stipulated period. 2. The opposite parties-Bank have filed a counter-affidavit stating therein that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Banking Division, has formulated a Scheme for employment on compassionate ground, as contained in letter No. 18/139/95-IR, dated 7th August, 1996, which is applicable to all the public sector Banks. The object of the said Scheme is to consider compassionate employment to the dependants of an employee dying in harness, leaving his family without any means of livelihood. The Scheme, inter alia, provides that in making assessment of the financial condition of the family, which is an important criterion for determining the eligibility to compassionate appointment, the following factors are required to be taken into consideration: (a) Family pension. (b) Gratuity amount received. (c) Employee's/'Employer's contribution to Provident Fund. (d) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund. (e) Proceeds of LIC policy and other investments of the deceased-employee. (f) Income for family from other sources. (g) Employment of other family members. (h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any, etc. 3. (b) Gratuity amount received. (c) Employee's/'Employer's contribution to Provident Fund. (d) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund. (e) Proceeds of LIC policy and other investments of the deceased-employee. (f) Income for family from other sources. (g) Employment of other family members. (h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any, etc. 3. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the Bank authorities considered the application of the petitioner dated 1.12.2000 for compassionate appointment, as per the provisions of the Scheme and as the family of the deceased-employee had received Rs. 6.20 lakhs as terminal dues after adjustment of Bank loans and the family also has received an amount of Rs. 3.57 lakhs on account of other investments and the family owns residential accommodation besides a piece of land, the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was declined, which was duly intimated to the petitioner vide letter of the Bank dated 23.7.2001, as per Annexure A/1 to the counter-affidavit. It is stated that suppressing the said fact, the present writ petition has been filed after lapse of more than six years. As regard the compassionate appointment given to the wife of the other deceased-employee, namely, Mahesh Mallick, it is stated that the same stands on a completely different footing and as the said case came within the criterion prescribed under the Scheme, employment on compassionate ground was given to the wife of the said deceased-employee. 4. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties-Bank submits that compassionate employment to the dependants of an employee dying in harness can only be considered in accordance with the Scheme framed and no discretion is left with the Bank authorities to make any such compassionate appointment de hors the Scheme. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and Another Vs. Somvir Singh, wherein the Hon'ble Court held as under: There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant-Bank is required to consider the request for compassionate appointment only in accordance with the scheme framed by it and no discretion as such left with any of the authorities to make compassionate appointment de hors the scheme. In our considered opinion the claim for compassionate appointment and "the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. In our considered opinion the claim for compassionate appointment and "the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be." 5. From the records, it reveals that the father of the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Manager in Bhubaneswar Branch, expired on 25.9.2000 at the age of 52 years, after rendering 27 years of service in the Bank. Pursuant to his death, the family of the deceased-employee has received Rs. 6.20 lakhs as terminal dues after adjustment of Bank loans. The family has also received an amount of Rs. 3.57 lakhs on account of other investments. Further, the family of the deceased-employee owns a residential accommodation, besides a piece of land. The Scheme for employment on compassionate ground framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Banking Division, dated 7.8.1996, which is applicable to the opposite parties-Bank, provides that the Bank will consider compassionate employment only in such cases, where it is satisfied that the financial condition of the family of the deceased-employee is such that but for the provision of employment to his dependant, the family will not be able to meet the crisis it faces at the time of the death of the said employee. Applying the provisions of the Scheme and considering the financial condition of the family, the Bank has proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 6. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, the Apex Court held: As a rule, appointment in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. 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 interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. 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 interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants 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 dependants 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 object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. 7. In Union Bank of India and Others Vs. M.T. Latheesh, Apex Court while dealing with similar question observed that indiscriminate grant of employment on compassionate grounds would shut the door for employment to the ever-growing population of unemployed youth. 8. In a near recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari and Another, the Apex Court came to hold as under: It is a settled legal proposition that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is not simply another method of recruitment. A claim to be appointed on such a ground, has to be considered in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions governing the subject, taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Such a category of employment itself, is an exception to the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16, which provide that there can be no discrimination in public employment. The object of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased to overcome the sudden financial crisis it finds itself facing, and not to confer any status upon it. 9. The object of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased to overcome the sudden financial crisis it finds itself facing, and not to confer any status upon it. 9. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased-employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touch-stone of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. As a rule public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. Appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. (See- Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Shashank Goswami and Another, 10. Applying the principles of law, as discussed above, to the facts of the present case, it is seen that the Bank authorities while considering the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment have taken into consideration the factors enumerated in the Scheme for assessing the financial condition of the family of the deceased-employee, which is an important criterion for determining the eligibility to compassionate appointment. As the family of the petitioner had received an amount of Rs. 6.20 lakhs as terminal dues, after adjustment of Bank loans and also received an amount of Rs. 3.57 lakhs on account of other investments and the family owned residential accommodation besides a piece of land, the Bank authorities came to hold that the dependant of the deceased-employee, who died in harness, are not in penury and without any means of livelihood. 3.57 lakhs on account of other investments and the family owned residential accommodation besides a piece of land, the Bank authorities came to hold that the dependant of the deceased-employee, who died in harness, are not in penury and without any means of livelihood. Accordingly, the Bank has proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. In our considered view, as the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected, keeping in view the financial condition of the family of the deceased-employee, as per the provisions of the Scheme, we do not find any impropriety or illegality in the said decision of the Bank authorities, so as to warrant any interference in this writ petition. The writ petition being devoid of merit, the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. M.M. Das, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed