JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, in calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the First Respondent vide Letter No.079906/326/G10/G101/2009 dated 24.09.2009 and consequential impugned order passed by the First Respondent vide Letter No.10629/584/G10/G101/2011 dated 27.01.2012 and to quash the same as illegal one. Further, he has sought for passing of an order by this Court consequentially directing the First Respondent to consider his claim for suitable appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the Representation projected by him dated 05.12.2011. 2. The Writ Facts:- "The Petitioner's late father M.Moorthy was employed as Field Assistant in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kannadasan Nagar, Vyaserpadi Zone, Chennai, Electricity Distribution Circle, North. He died in harness on 21.02.2007 leaving behind himself and his younger brother as his mother who pre-deceased his father on 25.09.2004. According to the Petitioner, he and his younger brother are only the legal heirs of his demised father." 3. The Petitioner's date of birth is 25.11.1993. At the time of his father's demise on 21.02.2007, he was only 14 years old and he passed SSLC during the year 2009. After completing his SSLC, he filed Representation dated 26.08.2009 requesting the Respondents to provide suitable appointment to him on compassionate ground. The First Respondent through proceedings in Letter No.079906/326/G10/G101/2009 dated 24.09.2009 passed the impugned order rejecting his plea for appointment on compassionate ground mentioning that applicant applying for appointment on compassionate ground has to file the application within three years from the date of death of the Board employees, the Petitioner should have completed VIII Std and further he should have completed 18 years of age. He had not completed 18 years of age within three years from the date of death of his demised father M.Moorthy. As such his request for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected. 4. After completing 18 years of age as on 24.11.2011, he preferred Representation dated 05.12.2011 requesting the First Respondent by bringing to his notice that his father Moorthy died in harness and his mother pre-deceased him. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner and his younger brother had become orphans. He completed X Std and passed Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner and his younger brother had become orphans. He completed X Std and passed Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering. The said application was rejected by the First Respondent through Letter No.10629/584/G10/G101/2011 dated 27.01.2012 mentioning that he had not completed 18 years within three years from the date of death of his father are illegal and invalid one in the eye of law. 5. The Petitioner's contentions:- "It is the plea of the Learned counsel for the Petitioner that his father died and also his mother pre-deceased his father and in fact, the Petitioner and his younger brother are virtually in the street and there is no source to support them." 6. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner and his younger brother Pradeep Kumar have become orphans and since the Petitioner has completed X Std and also passed Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, he may be given a suitable appointment based on his qualification. 7. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner to lend support to his contention that the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground cannot be rejected if the application was submitted beyond three years of date of death of his father relies on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in 2013 MLJ at page 190 [P.Sathiaraman Vs. Secretary to Government, Department of Electricity and Others] wherein it is held as follows:- "After analyzing the above said case laws, it was held that within 3 years of death of her husband, when the widow applied for appointment on compassionate ground, and due to bar of age etc., when she could not be appointed and the request for appointment has been followed by her son/daughter, who have then not attained majority and subsequently, applied within three years of their attaining majority, the request could be considered as continuation of their mother's application and the application given by him/her during the minority also could be considered as continuation of such earlier application and it cannot be denied on the ground that the application has been presented beyond 3 years of death of the father". 8. He also seeks in aid of the judgment dated 30.03.2009 in W.A.No.1652 of 2006 (3 Judges Bench) [The Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Another Vs. 8. He also seeks in aid of the judgment dated 30.03.2009 in W.A.No.1652 of 2006 (3 Judges Bench) [The Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Another Vs. S.Suder] whereby and whereunder in paragraphs 13 to 18 it is inter-alia observed and laid down as follows: "13.The objection of the Board appears to be that the application was made on 3.9.2002 and even before the said application was filed by the Memo dated 06.04.2002, the Board deleted the provisions of entitlement to make application conferred under B.P.No.46, dated 13.10.1995. As already observed, the appointment on compassionate grounds can be regulated by the employer with conditions attached to such regulations. When the Board is empowered to make eligible a candidate to apply a person to apply for compassionate appointment, even after his attaining the majority and within a period of three years, thereafter, in case he was a minor at the time of the death of the breadwinner, certainly, the Board could take away such right by the issuance of Circular, by deleting such provisions entitling such person also to apply after attaining the age of majority. The power of the Board cannot be questioned. Neverthless, our attention was drawn to the fact that the subsequent Memo dated 6.4.2002 was set aside by this Court in Writ Appeal No.3050 of 2003, by judgment dated 8.3.2005 and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. Civil Appeal No.16518 of 2005 and no interim order was granted. 14. We have perused the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 8.3.2005 in Writ Appeal No.3050 of 2003, wherein the Division Bench has directed consideration of the application of the petitioner therein, after setting aside the order impugned therein, necessarily meaning thereby, the Memo dated 6.4.2002 was also set aside. 15. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants-TNEB that the Division Bench has not elaborately discussed the purport of the Memo dated 5.4.2002 and the Division Bench had only set aside the order of rejection of the application and therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 16. 15. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants-TNEB that the Division Bench has not elaborately discussed the purport of the Memo dated 5.4.2002 and the Division Bench had only set aside the order of rejection of the application and therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 16. In our opinion, we cannot go into the circumstances under which the Division Bench has rendered the judgment and for our disposal of the present writ appeal, it would be suffice for us to refer to the direction of the Division Bench, namely, setting aside of the impugned order therein, including the memo dated 06.04.2002 as well. 17. In view of the fact that the appellants-TNEB cannot rely upon the Memo dated 6.4.2002 to reject the application of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds, we do not find any merits to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single judge. The application of the respondent made on 3.9.2002 should be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law,without reference to the Memo dated 6.4.2002. Such order should be passed by the appellants-TNEB within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 18. With the above modification in the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, the writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed". 9. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner cites the judgment dated 02.07.2009 in W.A.No.42 of 2007 (3 Judges Bench) [The Chief Engineer/Personnel Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Others Vs. P.Venkatesan] wherein in paragraphs 9 to 11 it is observed and held as under: "9. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Board has brought to our notice the judgment of another Division Bench in E.Ramasamy v.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board rep.by its Chairman, Chennai and others (2006) 4 MLJ 1080 . The said judgment was rendered by following the circular dated 6.4.2002, whereby the provision for an application to be made even after a person attaining majority was deleted. The said judgment was rendered by following the circular dated 6.4.2002, whereby the provision for an application to be made even after a person attaining majority was deleted. Inasmuch as the validity of the very circular was put in issue before the earlier Division Bench in Indiraniammal's case and the same was set aside, in our considered opinion, with great respect to the Division Bench which rendered the judgment in Ramasamy's case, the judgment in Ramasamy's case cannot be applied, particularly when the challenge to the order of the Division Bench in Indiraniammal's case was not stayed by the Supreme Court. We have rendered the above finding by simply following the earlier Division Bench judgment in Indiraniammal's case and we are not embarking into the validity of the circular dated 14.6.1997 or the subsequent circular dated 6.4.2002 as the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. 10. As we have already pointed out that the matter concerns only about eligibility to make an application and not for an automatic appointment on compassionate ground, even in case if this Court directs the application to be entertained, it is open to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the appellants herein to consider the application on its own merit and decide whether the applicant could be granted compassionate appointment or not. The consideration of the application for compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule, where any vacant post in Government or public sector undertaking etc. should be filled up only by the usual method of recruitment as per the rules. Having regard to the fact that the Board themselves have come forward with a decision to entertain the applications from the candidates even after they attained majority, though there is a considerable lapse of time in making such application, it cannot now reject the application of the respondent on the ground that it was filed with considerable lapse of time. 11. For all the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the application made by the respondent cannot be rejected on the ground that it was filed after a lapse of time and the said application should be considered by the Board on its own merits and be disposed of within a period of two months. 11. For all the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the application made by the respondent cannot be rejected on the ground that it was filed after a lapse of time and the said application should be considered by the Board on its own merits and be disposed of within a period of two months. We once again make it clear that by the above direction, we do not mean that the respondent would be automatically entitles for compassionate appointment merely because we have directed the consideration of his application. With the above observation, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.1 of 2007 is also dismissed. No costs". 10. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner invites the attention of this Court to the decision of 2011 (1) CTC [Mohanambal Vs. the Director, Land and Survey Department, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District and 3 others] at page 349 and at special page 349 and 350 wherein it is held as follows: "Similar issue was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar 2006(9) SCC 195 , wherein also the Supreme Court considered the fact that the wife of the deceased, having applied for compassionate appointment in time and as she was found not eligible, the Application submitted by the other legal heir was directed to be considered even after the lapse of eleven years. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said decision the Supreme Court held thus - "5. We are unable to accept the contention of the Counsel for the State. In the instant case, the widow had applied for appointment within the prescribed period and without assigning any reasons the same was rejected. When the Appellant submitted the Application he was 13 years' old and the Application was rejected after a period of six years and that too without giving any reason and the reason given by the authorities was incorrect as at the time of rejection of the Application he must have crossed 18 years and he could have been very well considered for appointment. Of course, in the rules framed by the State there is no specific provision as to what should be done in case the dependents are minors and there would be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting Application. 6. Of course, in the rules framed by the State there is no specific provision as to what should be done in case the dependents are minors and there would be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting Application. 6. As the widow had submitted the Application in time the authorities should have considered her Application. As eleven years have passed she would not be in a position to join the Government service. In our opinion, this is a fit case where the Appellant should have been considered in her place for appointment. Counsel for the State could not point out any other circumstance for which the Appellant would be disentitled to be considered for appointment. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the Respondent authorities to consider the Application of the Appellant and give him appropriate appointment within a reasonable time at least within a period of three months. The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs." Similar claim of the deceased Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employee was considered and relief granted by the Division Bench of this court in Indirani Ammal Vs. Chief Engineer, TNEB,. W.A.No.3050 of 2003 dated 08.03.2005 (P.Sathasivam, J (as he then was) and S.K.K., J.). The said decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2039 of 2006 dated 30.03.2010. Another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.42 of 2007 dated 02.07.2009 also took the same view, which was also confirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.8305 of 2010 dated 06.07.2010. The contra view taken by another Division Bench of this Court was set aside by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2858-2859 of 2010 dated 30.03.2010. Here in this case, the Petitioner's mother applied for compassionate appointment within one year and she was not given appointment due to want of minimum qualification of 8th Standard and the Petitioner being the only other legal heir, pursuing the matter and agitating her right for all these years. In the light of the present financial status of the Petitioner, the decision, reported in Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar, 2006 (9) SCC 195 (cited supra) applies to the facts of this case." 11. The Respondents' pleas:- The Writ Petition is not maintainable. In the light of the present financial status of the Petitioner, the decision, reported in Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar, 2006 (9) SCC 195 (cited supra) applies to the facts of this case." 11. The Respondents' pleas:- The Writ Petition is not maintainable. As the date of birth of the Petitioner was on 25.11.1993, he completed 18 years of age only on 24.11.2011 (which is after the expiry of three years of the demise of his father) as such the petition was rejected. 12. In terms of Permanent B.P. [Ms.(FB)No.45 (Adm. Branch)] dated 13.10.1995, application for compassionate appointment should be made within three years from the date of death of the Board employee and that, he ought to have completed 18 years of age and passed VIII Std. In the instant case, the Petitioner has not attained 18 years of age within time stipulated though he has completed SSLC as such he had not attained the age of 18 years on the stipulated date of application. 13. The Respondents' submissions:- The Learned Standing counsel for the Respondents by placing strong reliance on the Permanent B.P. [Ms.(FB)No.45 (Adm. Branch)] dated 13.10.1995 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board submits that the Board has issued the following modification to the scheme of Compassionate ground appointments to the dependants of the deceased employees and they are as follows:- "a) The application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within three years from the Date of Death of Government Servants. b) The maximum age limit, for such appointment be raised to 50 years in the case of widows of the deceased Government Servants. 2. As per the existing scheme in the Board, the employment assistance is being considered to the dependants of the employees of the Board who died while in service without any time limit for the submission of the application for employment assistance. It is specified that the age of Sons/Unmarried daughters, widowed or deserted daughters, divorced daughters should not be more than 30 years and in the case of widow 40 years on the date of death of the Board employee. 3. The Board has decided to adopt the orders of the Government. Accordingly, the following modification of the existing scheme of providing employment assistance to the dependants of the deceased employees of the Board is ordered. 1. 3. The Board has decided to adopt the orders of the Government. Accordingly, the following modification of the existing scheme of providing employment assistance to the dependants of the deceased employees of the Board is ordered. 1. The application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within three years from the date of death of employees of the Board. 2. The maximum age limit, for such appointment be raised to 50 (Fifty) years in the case of widows of the deceased employees of the Board. 3. In the case of already expired staff while in service the dependants should apply for employment assistance within three years from the date of issue of this order." 14. By adverting to the tenor spirit of the aforesaid Permanent B.P. [Ms.(FB)No.45 (Adm. Branch)] dated 13.10.1995, the Learned Standing counsel for the Respondents contends that as per the Board proceedings, the Petitioner had not attained the age of 18 years on the prescribed date and when he had not completed, more so, 18 years of age within the time adumbrated then he is not eligible to take a claim for compassionate ground appointment. 15. This Court has heard the Learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Standing counsel for the Respondents and noticed their respective contentions. 16. A scenario of Hon'ble Supreme Court Decisions:- "At this juncture, this Court quotes the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. (i). In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (Haryana state electricity Board V. Hakim Singh) (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 85 and at special pages 88 and 89, in paragraphs No. 12 & 14, it is observed and laid down as follows; “12. We are of the view that the High Court has erred in overstretching the scope of the compassionate relief provided by the Board in the circulars as above. It appears that the High Court would have treated the provision as a lien created by the Board for a dependent of the deceased employee. If the family members of the deceased employee can manage for fourteen years after his death one of his legal heirs cannot put forward a claim as though it is a line of succession by virtue of a right of inheritance. If the family members of the deceased employee can manage for fourteen years after his death one of his legal heirs cannot put forward a claim as though it is a line of succession by virtue of a right of inheritance. The object of the provisions should not be forgotten that it is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member. 13. This Court has considered the scope of the aforesaid circulars in Haryana SEB vs. Naresh Tanwar 1. (1996) 8 SCC 23 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 816: JT (1996) 2 SC 542. In that case the widow of a deceased employee made an application almost twelve years after the death of her husband requesting for accommodating her son in the employment of the Board, but it was rejected by the Board. When she moved the High court the Board was directed to appoint him on compassionate grounds. This Court upset the said directions of the High Court following two earlier decisions rendered by this Court, one in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 : (1994) 27 ATC 537, the other in Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 301 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 303: (1996) 32 ATC 238. In the former, a Bench of two Judges has pointed out that "the whole object of granting compassionate employment is 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 for the post held by the deceased." In the latter decision, which also was rendered by a Bench of two Judges, it was observed that "the very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family." The learned Judges pointed out that if the claim of the dependent which was preferred long after the death of the deceased employee is to be countenanced it would amount to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of the deceased government servant "which cannot be encouraged, dehors the recruitment rules." (ii). In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (Haryana State Electricity Board V.Naresh Tanwar and another) (1996) 8 Supreme Court Cases 23 and at special pages 26 and 27, in paragraphs No.7 to 11, it is observed and held as follows; “7. It has been submitted before us by the learned Counsel appearing for the State Electricity Board that previously there was nc scheme to give appointment to the members of the ex-employee dying in harness, but considering the indigent condition of the member of the family, provision to give monetary assistance within a limit to be determined by the concerned authority was made and such scheme has also been annexed to the SLP (C) No. 7878 of 1995. Later on, some of the circulars issued by the Government for giving compassionate appointment to the heirs of the ex-employee in government service dying in harness, were adopted. It appears from the annexure referred to the SLPs 7878/95 and SLP 13708/95 that previously there was no time limit within which an application was required to be made for getting appointment on compassionate ground. Subsequently it was confined that within a period of one year such application was required to be made. The said time frame was later on extended to a period of three years from the date of death of the ex-employee. The learned Counsel has submitted that although at the relevant time when the ex-employee died in both the civil writ petitions, no time limit for making application was indicated, but such application was required to be made within a reasonable time and in any event, the very purpose of compassionate appointment being to give immediate assistance to the members of the family of the ex-employee will be frustrated if such concession is allowed to be extended over the years so that by such long lapse of time the heir of the deceased-employee attains majority and then becomes eligible for being considered for appointment. 8. By the impugned judgments, the High court proceeded on the footing that compassionate appointment to achieve its purpose cannot be restricted within the time frame of three years and if assistance to the members of the deceased employee is required to be given, the family member must necessarily attain majority and then become eligible to apply for getting appointment. 9. By the impugned judgments, the High court proceeded on the footing that compassionate appointment to achieve its purpose cannot be restricted within the time frame of three years and if assistance to the members of the deceased employee is required to be given, the family member must necessarily attain majority and then become eligible to apply for getting appointment. 9. It has been indicated in the decision of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (Supra) that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee. In the other decision of this Court in Jagdish Prasad's case, it has been also indicated that the very object of appointment of dependent of deceased-employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family and such consideration cannot be kept binding for years. 10. It appears to us that the principle of compassionate appointment as indicated in the aforesaid decisions of this Court, is not only reasonable but consistent with the principle of employment in government and public sector. The impugned decisions of the High Court therefore can not be sustained. 11. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgments by allowing both the appeals. This order, however, will not preclude the concerned applicants to make representation to the State Electricity Board for consideration of the case of their appointment either as a temporary or permanent employee by giving full details of the family circumstances and the economic conditions. It is reasonably accepted that if such representation is made, the concerned authority, namely, the Haryana State Electricity Board will consider the same with such sympathy as the applicant may deserve in the facts of the case. (iii). In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (Jagdish Prasad V. State of Bihar and another) (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 301 and 302 in paragraphs No.2 to 4, it is observed and held as follows: “2. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition seeking appointment of the appellant on compassionate grounds. (iii). In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (Jagdish Prasad V. State of Bihar and another) (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 301 and 302 in paragraphs No.2 to 4, it is observed and held as follows: “2. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition seeking appointment of the appellant on compassionate grounds. The admitted fact is that he was four years' old at the time when his father died in harness in the year 1971. He filed the writ petition after attaining majority in 1994 for a direction to appoint him on compassionate grounds which was negatived. 3. It is contended for the appellant that when his father died in harness, the appellant was minor; the compassionate circumstances continue to subsist even till date and that, therefore, the court is required to examine whether the appointment should be made on compassionate grounds. We are afraid, we cannot accede to the contention. The very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971, in which year the appellant was four years old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter. In other words, if that contention is accepted, it amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased government servant which cannot be encouraged, de hors the recruitment rules. 4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” (iv). In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (Andra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another V. Dannina Rajeswari) 1999 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1182, it is observed that 'Compassionate Appointment' can be directed to be given only in a clear vacancy'. (v). In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (Haryana State Electricity Board V. Krishna Devi) (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 246 and at special page 247, in paragraphs No.5 to 8, it is observed and held as follows; “5. It is well-settled that employment on corn-passionate ground is given only on pure humanitarian consideration and no appointment can be claimed as a matter of right. The main object was to provide immediate financial help to the family of the deceased employee. It is well-settled that employment on corn-passionate ground is given only on pure humanitarian consideration and no appointment can be claimed as a matter of right. The main object was to provide immediate financial help to the family of the deceased employee. It is also well-settled that employment under compassionate ground cannot be made in absence of rules or instructions issued by the government or any public authority. 6. Admittedly, the application was made by the respondent after a lapse of eight years of death of her husband. At that time there was no rule for such an employment. Subsequently, however, in the year 1985 the appellant board issued a circular framing scheme for such employment to the dependents of the deceased work-charged/ daily wage employees. The husband of the respondent died in the year 1984 but at that time, the above scheme was not available. 7. As the application for employment of her son on compassionate ground was made by the respondent after eight years of death of her husband, we are of the opinion that it was not to meet the immediate financial need of the family. The High Court did not consider the position of law and allowed the writ petition relying on an earlier decision of the High Court. 8. In view of the above settled position of law and as the application was filed after eight years of the death of her husband, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable. If the impugned order is allowed to stand, the purpose of making appointment on compassionate ground would frustrate. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. No costs.” (vi). In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Mrs.Asha Ramchandra Ambekar and another, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 2148 and at special page 2150, in paragraphs No.10 to 15, it is observed and laid down as follows; 10. Of late, this Court is coming across many cases in which appointment on compassionate ground is directed by judicial authorities. Hence, we would like to lay down the law in this regard. The High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration. Of late, this Court is coming across many cases in which appointment on compassionate ground is directed by judicial authorities. Hence, we would like to lay down the law in this regard. The High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration. No doubt Shakspeare said in Merchant of Venice: “The quality of mercy is not strained; It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath it is twice bless'd; It blessth him that gives, and him that takes;”. 11. These words will not apply to all situations. Yielding to instinct will tend to ignore the cold logic of law. It should be remembered "law is the embodiment of all wisdom". Justice according to law is a principle as old as the hills. The Courts are to administer law as they find it, however, inconvenient it may be. 12. At this juncture we may usefully refer to Martin Bum Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta. AIR 1966 SC 529 . At page 535 of the Report the following observations are found : “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. A statute must of course be given effect to whether a Court likes the result or not.” 13. The Courts should endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. Disregardful of law, however, hard the case may be, it should never be done. In the very case, itself, there are Regulations and Instructions which we have extracted above. The Court below has not even examined whether a case falls within the scope of these statutory provisions. Clause 2 of Sub-clause (iii) of Instructions makes it clear that relaxation could be given only when none of the members of the family is gainfully employed. Clause 4 of the Circular dated 20.1.1987 interdicts such an appointment on compassionate grounds. The appellant Corporation being a statutory Corporation is bound by the Life Insurance Corporation Act as well as the Statutory Regulations and Instructions. They cannot be put aside and compassionate appointment be ordered. 14. Further it is well settled in law that no mandamus will be issued directing to do a thing forbidden by law. The appellant Corporation being a statutory Corporation is bound by the Life Insurance Corporation Act as well as the Statutory Regulations and Instructions. They cannot be put aside and compassionate appointment be ordered. 14. Further it is well settled in law that no mandamus will be issued directing to do a thing forbidden by law. In Brij Mohan v. M.P.S.R.T. Corporation., AIR 1987 SC 29 , it is stated as under : “The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and in particular Ss 42 and 59 clearly debar all holders of permits including the State Road Transport Corporation from indulging in unauthorised trafficking in permits. Therefore, the agreement entered into by the petitioner, unemployed graduate, with the State Road Transport Corporation to ply his bus is nominee of the Corporation on the route in respect of which the permit was issued in favour of the Corporation for a period of five years, was clearly contrary to the Act and cannot, therefore, be enforced. In the circumstances, the petitioner would not be entitled to the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Corporation to allow him to operate his motor vehicle as a stage carriage under the permit obtained by the Corporation as its nominee.” 15. It is true that there may be pitiable situations but on that score, the statutory provisions cannot be put aside.” In the aforesaid decision at page 2151 at paragraph No. 19, it is observed that Court cannot direct appointments to be made contrary to statutory provisions. 17. Discussions: It is not in dispute that the Petitioner's father died on 21.02.2007 equally there is no dispute and another important fact that the Petitioner's mother Suja also died on 25.09.2004 as on date, the Petitioner and his younger brother are left as orphans (as informed by the Learned counsel for the Petitioner before this Court). 17. Discussions: It is not in dispute that the Petitioner's father died on 21.02.2007 equally there is no dispute and another important fact that the Petitioner's mother Suja also died on 25.09.2004 as on date, the Petitioner and his younger brother are left as orphans (as informed by the Learned counsel for the Petitioner before this Court). It is to be pointed out that an offer of compassionate appointment or a compassionate appointment is made by the employer only with a view to alleviate the family from the distress and that a breadwinner of the family has expired, then to provide livelihood to the family and also to enable the family to come out of the unfortunate situation, compassionate appointment is ordinarily provided to a person of the family of the deceased after taking into account the numerous factors by the employer appointing authority as the case may be. 18. In the instant case on hand, the Petitioner's date of birth is on 25.11.1993, he completed 18 years on 24.11.2011 even though at the time of projection of his application dated 26.08.2009, the Petitioner had not attained the age of 18 years but he submitted the said application within three years from the date of death of his father on 21.02.2007. 19. The Permanent B.P. [Ms.(FB)No.45 (Adm. Branch)] dated 13.10.1995 is as on date very much in existence and the Respondents/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board are providing employment to the needy by following the said proceedings in true letter and spirit. 20. In view of the fact that the Petitioner had not attained the age of 18 years on the stipulated date and since he was only 14 years when his father died on 21.02.2007 and in view of the fact that he had not completed 18 years within three years from the date of death of his father Moorthy, the Respondents have not considered his claim/case for appointment on compassionate ground by placing strong reliance on the Permanent B.P. [Ms.(FB)No.45 (Adm. Branch)] dated 13.10.1995 and the said rejection order passed by the First Respondent through impugned order in Letter No.079906/326/G10/G101/2009 dated 24.09.2009 and later the rejection of Petitioner's application through proceedings in Letter No.10629/584/G10/G101/2011 dated 27.01.2012 in the considered opinion of this Court could be found fault with because of the simple reason that the Respondents are to act within the Rules and Regulations of the Proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. As such, the impugned orders dated 24.09.2009 passed by the First Respondent in Letter No.079906/326/G10/G101/2009 dated 24.09.2009 and subsequent rejection in Letter No.10629/584/G10/G101/2011 dated 27.01.2012 did not call for any interference in the hands of this Court in Writ Jurisdiction since they do not suffer from infirmity and material impropriety/illegality in the eye of law and consequently, Writ Petition fails. 21. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Before parting with the case, this Court taking note of the fact that the Petitioner and his younger brother Pradeep Kumar who are the legal heirs of the deceased father Moorthy and mother Suja are left as orphans finding difficult for livelihood, directs the Respondents to ascertain the present conditions and economic status of the Petitioner and also by adopting humanitarian and sympathetic consideration is to look into the Petitioner's claim for compassionate ground appointment in a Fair, Just and dispassionate manner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In this regard, the Petitioner is directed to submit a fresh petition/application to the Respondents/authorities concerned citing his present qualification (both educational wise and technical qualification) within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Respondents are directed to consider the Petitioner's application/petition for compassionate appointment to any suitable post which he is found suitable and eligible (based on his educational as well as technical qualification) as the case may be. The Respondents are to carry out the exercise of considering the Petitioner's application and they are directed to pass a reasoned, speaking orders on merits taking into consideration the entire conspectus and attendant facts and circumstances of the present case in an encircling fashion without untrammeled and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this court in this Writ Petition.