JUDGMENT (A.M.Sapre, CJ) This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) 6056 of 2012 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 03.01.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and declined to grant any relief claimed in the wit petition. So the short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether learned Single judge was justified in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition? Facts of the case are short. The appellant’s (writ petitioner) mother died in extremist activities. The appellant, therefore, being a dependent member in her family, applied for employment in State Service in accordance with the provisions of “The Assam Public Services (appointment of family members of persons killed by Extremists /terrorist) Rules 1992” (for short called The Rules“). Her application was processed and eventually accepted by the State by offering her the post of Junior Assistant in Grade III/IV. The appellant accordingly accepted and joined the post of Junior Assistant. The appellant then filed the writ petition, out of which, this appeal arises challenging therein the action of the State in giving her appointment on the post of “Junior Assistant “. According to her, looking to her qualifications i.e. ( graduate with law degree ), she was entitled for appointment on a much higher post in Assam Civil Services and not what was given to her i.e. Junior Assistant and that too in Grade III/IV cadre. She placed reliance on certain provisions of the Rules. The writ court finding no merit in her contention dismissed the writ petition giving rise to filing of the writ appeal by the writ petitioner. Heard Mr. D Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.HK Mahanta and Mr. RK Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant (writ petitioner) and on perusal of the record of the case, we find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the writ court In our considered opinion, the appellant has no case on merits. RK Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant (writ petitioner) and on perusal of the record of the case, we find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the writ court In our considered opinion, the appellant has no case on merits. All that the appellant in this case and on admitted facts could claim as being her legal right was “employment in state services“ subject to fulfilling other qualifications prescribed for claiming an employment in State services, but could not claim an employment in any particular services much less on particular post. It is one thing to say that the appellant was legally entitled by virtue of the Rules to claim employment in State services consequent upon the death of her mother she being a dependant surviving member in victims family and it is another thing to say that the appellant was entitled to claim employment in particular “State services” and that too on a “particular post”. If former, in our view, is permissible in law the later is not. It is for the reason that former is governed by the Rule whereas the later is not provided in the Rules. In the case at hand, even the appellant (writ petitioner) while applying had declared in the application that she was a candidate for appointment to the post of Grade-III/IV. In the light of this voluntary declaration made, she had no right to turn around and claim appointment to some other higher post which she was otherwise not entitled to claim for want of any legal right under the Rules in her favour. In our opinion, the appointment given to any person under the Rules is essentially regarded as being in the nature of “compassionate appointment“. It is for the reason that it is given to one dependent member of victim’s family who died in an unfortunate tragedy. In other words, only those persons are considered eligible to claim employment in the State services, who fulfill the requirements of the Rules. Such appointment is, therefore, never regarded as being in the nature of regular appointment for any particular post on the basis of regular selection process available to all. In other words, only those persons are considered eligible to claim employment in the State services, who fulfill the requirements of the Rules. Such appointment is, therefore, never regarded as being in the nature of regular appointment for any particular post on the basis of regular selection process available to all. It is for all these reasons, we are not impressed by the grounds pressed in service by the appellant for claiming her appointment in Assam Civil Services or/and on higher post than what was offered to her. In the light of our discussion made above. We do not consider it necessary to elaborate more on this issue. Needless to observe, the appellant would always be at liberty to compete for selection to any higher services or/and post on the basis of her qualification as a regular candidate and there is no reason why she would not be so considered for such post provided she is able to successfully pass all the eligibility test prescribed for such higher post in any State or Union services. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit. It, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. No cost.