JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The learned Single Judge has dismissed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking compassionate appointment. The father of the appellant was employed as a Headmaster in a private aided institution and died in harness on 1 December 2002. Though the appellant had moved a representation to the District Inspector of Schools on 25 February 2003 for compassionate appointment, it did not evince any response. The appellant waited for nearly seven years thereafter to file writ proceedings before this Court which were disposed on 23 November 2010 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to consider and decide the claim of the appellant The District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 2 February 2011 rejecting the claim of the appellant. 2. The learned Single Judge has proceeded on the basis that a sanctioned post of a clerk/helper was available. Insofar as the post of teacher was concerned, the appellant did not fulfil the requisite requirements. 3. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge, in our view, has correctly proceeded on the basis that the whole object and purpose of compassionate appointment is to tide over an immediate financial crisis due to the death of the employee. Though the appellant submitted a representation in 2003, it was only in 2010 that a writ proceeding was moved before the Court seeking an appropriate direction to the District Inspector of Schools. On the date when the learned Single Judge decided the writ petition, nearly 12 years had elapsed since the date of death. Even the first writ petition was filed nearly 8 years after the date of death of the father of the appellant and seven years after the first representation. 4. In this view of the matter, the view of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but is a special provision which is made to enable the family of a deceased employee to tide over an immediate financial crisis. At this point in time, when nearly 12 years have elapsed after the death of the employee, compassionate appointment could not be granted. Hence, for these reasons, we find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.