JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the prayer for besetting the impugned order dated 6th of May 2012 (Annex.6) and for seeking direction against the respondents to consider his case sympathetically for appointment on compassionate grounds. 2. The petitioner, inter-alia, alleged in the writ petition that his father was in employment of Animal Husbandry Department and while in service he passed away on 16th of January 2002. After death of his father, his mother applied for appointment on compassionate grounds and the same was accorded to her but unfortunately she too died in harness on 15th April 2005. The untimely death of mother of petitioner left the petitioner and his sister in distress inasmuch as there was no bread winner in the family. As per version of the petitioner, in such extremely hard situations he submitted an application before the respondents for offering him appointment on compassionate grounds on 30th April 2005. The application submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the higher authorities and ultimately that application was rejected by the competent authority vide its order dated 6th May 2005, citing the legal embargo under Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1996'). While questioning the order impugned (Annex.6), the petitioner has averred in the writ petition that the reasons assigned for not providing him appointment on compassionate grounds are not worth any credence inasmuch as two elder brothers who are serving the Central Government are living separately and are not providing any financial assistance to the petitioner as well as his sister. The petitioner has also staked his claim by highlighting the fact that he belongs to privileged class of the society. 3. On behalf of the respondents, reply to the writ petition is submitted and the averments contained in the writ petition are denied. While defending the impugned order, the respondents have averred in the reply that the legal embargo under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 is clear and explicit and as such there is no infirmity much less any legal infirmity in the impugned order. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials on record. 5. Before examining the matter, it is very much desirable to examine the object of providing appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials on record. 5. Before examining the matter, it is very much desirable to examine the object of providing appointment on compassionate grounds. The object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. 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 if it is satisfied but for the provisions of compassionate appointment that the family will not be able to meet the crisis, a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. In this view of the matter, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is only an exception carved out to provide some solace to the bereaved family whose bread winner has suddenly passed away. There is no quarrel in the legal position that public employments are to be made strictly in adherence of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It is with this solemn object the legislation in its wisdom has put an embargo under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996. The complete extract of Rule 5 is reproduced as under: 5. Appointment subject to certain conditions: When a Government servant dies while in service one of his/her dependents may be considered for appointment in Government service subject to the condition that employment under these Rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or at least one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/daughter of the deceased Government servant is already employed on regular basis under the Central/State Government or Statutory Board, Government at the time of death of the Government servant.Provided that the condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself. 6. From a bare perusal of the Rule 5 quoted hereinabove, it is amply clear that the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority in consonance and conformity with the legislative intent and therefore the same cannot be faulted in any manner whatsoever. Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed by an incumbent dehors the rules or the scheme governing the said province. 7. Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed by an incumbent dehors the rules or the scheme governing the said province. 7. On examining the claim of the petitioner, delay and laches on the part of the petitioner cannot be overlooked in the given circumstances. Admittedly, the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was considered by the authority and his said request was declined as back as on 6th of May 2005 and the present petition has been filed after a lapse of five years. For such inordinate delay and laches, there is no explanation tendered by the petitioner in the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner is also liable to be non-suited solely on the ground of delay and laches. 8. Last but not the least, since death of the petitioner's mother, almost eight years have elapsed and therefore, I do not consider it proper to exercise extraordinary equitable jurisdiction in his favour. 9. Thus, viewed from any angle, there is no force in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed summarily.Petition Dismissed. *******