JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Arun Kumar Tiwari for the petitioner and Shri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 13.2.2013 passed by the Executive Director (Personnel), Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter in short called as Corporation). He has further prayed for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules applicable to the Corporation. 3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that late Pooran Chandra Awasthi-the father of the petitioner was working as Administrative Officer (S.R. No. 209395) at E.D.M.S. Department of the Corporation. He died in harness on 10.7.2011 leaving behind Smt. Nirmala Awasthi-the widow, one son namely Anurag Awasthi (the petitioner) and two daughters namely Amita Dubey and Archana Pandey, who are married and are residing with their family in U.S.A. The mother of the petitioner moved an application on 23.9.2011 before the Senior Divisional Manager of the Corporation for providing compassionate appointment to her son on the ground that the family has no source of income. The date of birth of the petitioner is 24.8.1979. He passed High School examination with 1st Division in the year 1994; Intermediate examination with 2nd Division in the year 1996 and Bachelor of Science with 2nd Division in the year 1999. He also passed M.B.A in the year 2008 from Lucknow University. In pursuance to the queries made by the Corporation dated 29.9.2011, the mother of the petitioner provided all necessary details to the Corporation on 7.10.2011. Finally the Manager of the Corporation vide letter dated 16.7.2012 had informed that the Competent Authority had refused to provide any relaxation in age for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner challenged the communication order dated 16.7.2012 by means of Writ Petition No. 62576 of 2012 (Anurag Awasthi v. The Chairman, L.I.C., Mumbai and others). This Court vide order dated 16.1.2013 had disposed of the said writ petition in term of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 72733 of 2010 (Dinesh Kumar Gautam v. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others) decided on the said date. This Court vide order dated 16.1.2013 had disposed of the said writ petition in term of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 72733 of 2010 (Dinesh Kumar Gautam v. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others) decided on the said date. The order dated 16.1.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 62576 of 2012 is reproduced herein below : “The controversy raised in the present writ petition has been answered by this Court by deciding Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 72783 of 2010 (Dinesh Kumar Gautam v. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others) wherein in the facts of the case, as this aspect of matter has not been examined and dealt with as to whether age relaxation can be accorded or not, liberty is given to petitioner to represent his claim in the said direction before the Executive Director (Personnel), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Yogchema, Jeewan Bima Marg, Mumbai and in case any such representation is moved alongwith certified copy of this order, the same be dealt with and decided, in accordance with law, preferably within next three months from the date of receipt of representation. In view of this, following the same set of reasoning, as has been mentioned in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 72783 of 2010 (Dinesh Kumar Gautam v. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others), present writ petition is also disposed of and the benefits accorded to the petitioner of aforementioned writ petition, be accorded to present petitioner also.” 4. In compliance with the order passed by this Court, the Executive Director (Personnel) vide order dated 13.2.2013 had turned down the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryan, (1994) 4 SCC 138 . The relevant part of the order dated 13.2.2013 reads as follows : “The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , has made it clear that the object of compassionate ground appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment. After introduction of pension in LIC, compassionate appointments are given in the rarest cases where the family demographics and financial position call for such compassion. After introduction of pension in LIC, compassionate appointments are given in the rarest cases where the family demographics and financial position call for such compassion. Relaxations in time and or age are also based on these considerations. In view of aforesaid, we are unable to consider your representation.” 5. Shri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained on the ground that the Corporation had not given any cogent reason while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. He further submitted that it was incumbent upon the Corporation to assign the reasons under what circumstances the relaxation in age could not be granted in respect of petitioner as family demographics and financial position do not fall for compassion and the Corporation had also not filed any policy or circular giving the criteria to determine the financial condition of the family. He further submitted that the father of the petitioner was suffering from kidney problem and more than Rs. 15 lacs was spent towards his treatment. The petitioner had also met with an accident in which the huge amount was spent for his treatment. The relevant materials have been ignored and at no point of time the Corporation had even Courtesy to inform the petitioner the circumstances on which the Corporation had rejected the rightful claim of the petitioner. 6. Shri R.K. Ojha submitted that the petitioner is fully qualified for appointment in the Corporation and the mother of the petitioner is wholly dependent on him. In similar facts and circumstances, the Corporation appointed many persons on compassionate ground and as such the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Not giving employment to the unemployed dependent of the deceased employee shall frustrate the spirit and provisions for compassionate appointment. The provisions of the compassionate employment of the Corporation is so interpreted so that the purpose of the provisions may be achieved in reference to S. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 1996 (6) SC 268. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, (2005) 10 SCC 289 , in which it was held that the compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules. 7. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, (2005) 10 SCC 289 , in which it was held that the compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed indicating that the Corporation has framed Regulation known as Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Regulation,1960’). In exercise of powers vested under Regulation-4 of the Regulation, 1960 the Chairman has issued instructions called as ‘Life Insurance Corporation of India (Recruitment of Class-III and Class-IV Staff) Instructions, 1979’ (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Instructions, 1979’) indicating the mode of appointment on compassionate grounds. Clause 21 of the Instructions, 1979 provides as under : “RELAXATION IN FAVOUR OF NEAR RELATIVES OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO DIES WHILE IN SERVICE OR RETIRES AT LEAST 5 YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SUPERANUATION: (i) There shall be relaxation in upper age limits and educational qualifications in favour of near relatives as defined in (ii) below, of an employee who dies while in service as prescribed in Annexure-III hereto. While an employee is retired prematurely under Regulations 19(3) of the (Staff) Regulations, on health grounds or on being incapacitated for continuous service at least five years before the date of his superannuation, compassionate appointments may be made of one of the relatives mentioned in (ii) below subject to the candidate satisfying all the requirements as prescribed for appointments in the event of death while in service, such appointment may also be made where an employee is retired prematurely at least five years before the date of his superannuation not for any misconduct but for poor performance. (ii) Such relaxations shall be admissible only in favour of a spouse, son or unmarried daughter of the employee. (iii) The relaxations shall be admissible only where none of the members of the family spouse, son or unmarried daughter is gainfully employed. However, if the widow is already employed elsewhere in private sector she will be allowed to take up a job in the Corporation in Class-III or Class-IV cadre commensurate with her qualifications if she opts for the same. (iv) The relaxations shall be admissible either to the spouse or to one of the children as specified. However, if the widow is already employed elsewhere in private sector she will be allowed to take up a job in the Corporation in Class-III or Class-IV cadre commensurate with her qualifications if she opts for the same. (iv) The relaxations shall be admissible either to the spouse or to one of the children as specified. (v) The relaxations shall be admissible only if a request is received from the relative who satisfies the conditions of minimum educational qualifications, age etc. as prescribed, within a period of one year from the date of death of the employee or early retirement as specified. Provided that the time limit on one year may be extended in the cases satisfied below: (a) A widow may be allowed upto 5 years from the date of death of her husband to secure the prescribed qualification for appointment to class-III post in the Corporation. (b) A major son or unmarried daughter who satisfies the qualification for appointment to class IV post, maybe allowed upto two years from the date of death to secure prescribed qualification for a class III post if he/she so desires. (c) Upto three years from the date of death where all the children are minor.” 8. As the Corporation was constituted under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (in short called as the Act, 1956) and amendment was carried out in the said Act and in reference to Section 49 of the Act, the Corporation was given power to frame its own regulations. Consequent upon the Regulation, 1960 was framed and in reference to Regulation-4 the instructions and directions were issued by the Chairman to carry out the provisions of regulation in order to secure the effective control over the staff employed in the Corporation, and the Chairman in exercise of powers conferred to him under Regulation-4 of ‘Regulation, 1960’ issued ‘Instructions, 1979’. These instructions contained relaxation for appointment of near relatives of an employee, who died while in service. The instructions, which have been so issued, have the force of law and are statutory in character and hence the Corporation is bound by these instructions. Thus, the appointment to be made by the Corporation cannot go beyond these instructions in the matter of providing compassionate appointment. The instructions, which have been so issued, have the force of law and are statutory in character and hence the Corporation is bound by these instructions. Thus, the appointment to be made by the Corporation cannot go beyond these instructions in the matter of providing compassionate appointment. The Supreme Court had the occasion to interpret these very instructions in the case of L.I.C. of India v. Asha Ram Chhandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and another, 1994 (2) SCC 718 , in which it was held that these instructions are statutory in character. Therefore, they have the force of law. The appellant Corporation being statutory Corporation is bound by the Life Insurance Corporation Act as well as the statutory regulations and instructions. They cannot be put aside the compassionate appointment be ordered. 9. Shri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment was considered by the Executive Director of the Corporation, who exercised his discretionary powers in considering the claim for relaxation in age and only after judicially applying his mind and keeping overall scenario of the family, rejected the claim. The entire purpose of the compassionate employment is to give immediate support to the family to mitigate hardship caused due to death of the bread earner of the family but in the instant case there was no as such hardship. The petitioner had already crossed the age of 30 years and as such there was no requirement of exercising the discretionary powers for relaxation in age for providing compassionate employment to the petitioner. He has also submitted that the family was paid the entire terminal benefits accruing on the demise of the father of the petitioner amounting to approximately Rs. 40 lacs and the mother of the petitioner is also receiving family pension of Rs. 17,000/-. Further, it is not out of place to mention that both the sisters of the petitioner are married and are well-settled in their life in U.S.A and as such, the family is not facing any financial crisis 10. Shri Manish Goyal submitted that as per Regulation 10 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960, the upper age limit is 30 years for the son or unmarried daughter of an employee, who dies while in service. Shri Manish Goyal submitted that as per Regulation 10 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960, the upper age limit is 30 years for the son or unmarried daughter of an employee, who dies while in service. In the present case, at the date of death of the petitioner’s father he was admittedly over age by 1 year, 10 months and 12 days. He has also apprised to the Court that while formulating the Rules for compassionate appointment, sufficient relaxations in age and qualification have also been made by the Corporation. In addition to this, the normal procedure of recruitment i.e. written test is not applicable to compassionate appointment. The entire purpose of compassionate appointment is to give immediate support to the family to mitigate hardships caused due to death of bread earner. The Corporation in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court dated 16.1.2013 had considered the claim of the petitioner and as such no case was made out for exercising the discretionary power vested in the concerned authority and rightly rejected the claim and as such in the order impugned there is no infirmity. He further submitted that the Executive Director (Personnel) of the Corporation has been conferred with the discretion to consider each and every case on its own facts and circumstances, specially for relaxation of upper age limit but as such there is no scheme in this regard. The Executive Director (Personnel) has been vested with the authority to consider the matters in his discretion. While passing the impugned order dated 13.2.2013, the three factors, namely introduction of pension in LIC, secondly family demographics and thirdly the financial position of the family, had taken into consideration in determining the family position of the petitioner. The Executive Director (Personnel) relied upon the payments made to the petitioner and his family. 11. Shri Manish Goyal further submitted that the present issue is no longer res-integra on the ground that in the earlier set of litigation this Court held that there is no vested right to the petitioner to claim appointment on compassionate ground. 12. Shri Manish Goyal submitted that the records of the present matter would eventually prove that the action of the Corporation is neither arbitrary nor illegal in not providing appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner. The Corporation has followed the executive instructions, which have been issued from time to time. 12. Shri Manish Goyal submitted that the records of the present matter would eventually prove that the action of the Corporation is neither arbitrary nor illegal in not providing appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner. The Corporation has followed the executive instructions, which have been issued from time to time. The discretion to be exercised by the Corporation has to be in consonance with these instructions, which have been issued from time to time. In the present case, the petitioner is admittedly over by 01 year, 10 months and 12 days and as such the Corporation is justified in refusing the appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. This discretion cannot be termed as an arbitrary decision because the decision making body is at liberty to evaluate each and every matter individually and as such the circumstances do not lead to the indication that the family at any point of time was in distress and there was any immediate requirement to rescue. 13. Shri Manish Goyal also submitted that in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ram Chandra Ambedkar and another, 1994 (2) SCC 718 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the LIC of India Recruitment (of Class-III and Class-IV) Instructions, 1979 issued by the Chairman in exercise of the powers vested in him under Regulation 4 of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, which instructions also provide that the appointments on compassionate ground are statutory in character and therefore, they have the force of law. Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of the judgment are reproduced as under : “11. At this juncture we may usefully refer to Martin Burn Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta’. 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.” The Courts should endeavor 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. A statute must of course be given effect to whether a Court likes the result or not.” The Courts should endeavor 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 1 AIR 1966 SC 529 , 535: (1966) 1 SCR 543 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 January 20, 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. 12. Further it is well-settled in law that no mandamus will be issued directing to do a thing forbidden by law. In Brij Mohan Parihar v. M.P.S.R.T. Corpn.2 it is stated as under: “The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and in particular Sections 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 as 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.” 13. It is true that there may be pitiable situations but on that score, the statutory provisions cannot be put aside. 14. In this very case, on the demise of Ramchandra Ambekar, the first respondent staked her claim but she was age barred. It is true that there may be pitiable situations but on that score, the statutory provisions cannot be put aside. 14. In this very case, on the demise of Ramchandra Ambekar, the first respondent staked her claim but she was age barred. Therefore, the second respondent when he put forth his entitlement, the appellant Corporation passed an order dated October 21, 1991 in answer to the second respondent’s request for appointment on compassionate grounds as follows: “Life Insurance Corporation of India, Nasik Divisional Office, `Jeevan Prakash’ Golf Club Ground, Old Agra Road, Post Box No. II 0, Nasik - 422 002 Dated : 21st October, 1991 Ref: Shri Nitin Ramchandra Ambekar, s/o Smt A.R. Ambekar, Jamner Road, Municipal Colony, at & Post-Bhusawal, Distt. Jalgaon. Dear Sir, Re : Your appeal for suitable employment on compassionate grounds We had received your appeal dated June 21, 1991. We had submitted it to the Competent Authority and we are sorry to inform you that the Competent Authority has shown inability to offer any employment to you. Thanking You, Yours faithfully, Sd/- Sr. Divisional Manager.” 15. To say, as a Court below has done, that the second respondent is at the prime of his life and youth and is aged about 21 years and the dues that are paid by the Life Insurance Corporation to the family are the lawful dues that are earned by the deceased. Therefore, on facts, he would be entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds, is not the correct approach. 16. We are totally unable to support this line of reasoning. For aught one know, there may be other cases waiting already for appointment on compassionate grounds, they may be even harder than that of the second respondent. 17. Thus, apart from the direction as to appointment on compassionate grounds being against statutory provisions, such direction does not take note of this fact. Whatever it may be, the Court should not have directed the appointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction under mandamus cannot be exercised in that fashion. It should have merely directed consideration of the claim of the second respondent. To straightaway direct the appointment would only put the appellant Corporation in piquant situation. The disobedience of this direction will entail contempt notwithstanding the fact that the appointment may not be warranted. This is yet another ground which renders the impugned judgment dated October 19, 1993 unsupportable. It should have merely directed consideration of the claim of the second respondent. To straightaway direct the appointment would only put the appellant Corporation in piquant situation. The disobedience of this direction will entail contempt notwithstanding the fact that the appointment may not be warranted. This is yet another ground which renders the impugned judgment dated October 19, 1993 unsupportable. For these reasons, the civil appeal will stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 14. Shri Manish Goyal has also submitted that the judgment in Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others (supra) has very much been considered in Mumtaj Yunus Malani (Smt.) v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2008 (11) SCC 384 . Paragraph-14 of the judgment is reproduced hereinafter : “14. The question came up for consideration yet again in Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC of India, (2005) 10 SCC 289 , wherein it was held: “6. In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities and the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased (which amount, according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half) and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules. The scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules. So far as the question of gainful employment of the elder brother is concerned, we find that it had been given out that he has been engaged in cultivation. We hardly find that it could be considered as gainful employment if the family owns a piece of land and one of the members of the family cultivates the field. This statement is said to have been contradicted when it is said that the elder brother had stated that he works as a painter. This would not necessarily be a contradiction much less leading to the inference drawn that he was gainfully employed somewhere as a painter. He might be working in his field and might casually be getting work as painter also. This would not necessarily be a contradiction much less leading to the inference drawn that he was gainfully employed somewhere as a painter. He might be working in his field and might casually be getting work as painter also. Nothing has been indicated in the enquiry report as to where he was employed as a regular painter. The other aspects, on which the officer was required to make enquiries, have been conveniently omitted and not a whisper is found in the report submitted by the officer. In the above circumstances, in our view, the orders passed by the High Court are not sustainable. The respondents have wrongly refused compassionate appointment to the appellant. The inference of gainful employment of the elder brother could not be acted upon. The terminal benefits received by the widow and the family pension could not be taken into account.” It, however, does not appear that therein the earlier binding precedent of this Court had been taken notice of.” 15. Shri Manish Goyal has also relied upon the judgment in Union of India v. Shashank Goswami and another, AIR 2012 SC 2294 , in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the terminal benefits having been received, the same will be a material consideration for the purpose of appointment on compassionate basis. Where the family of the deceased gets terminal benefits exceeding a particular ceiling, then as such the family member would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16 of the judgment are reproduced as under : “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 touchstone of Article 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. 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 get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. Thus, applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular class/group of post. 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. 10. This Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, (2005) 10 SCC 289 , while dealing with a similar issue i.e. whether payment of terminal/retiral benefits to the family can be taken into consideration, held as under: “In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities ..... to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased ..... and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules. . ..... Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amount admissible under the Rules.” 11. This Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 , placing reliance upon the earlier judgment in General Manager (D&PB) and others v. Kunti Tiwari and another, (2004) 7 SCC 271 , held that compassionate appointment has to be made in accordance with the Rules, Regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Whereas the scheme provides that in case the family of the deceased gets the retrial/terminal benefits exceeding a particular ceiling, the dependant of such deceased employee, would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. 12. Whereas the scheme provides that in case the family of the deceased gets the retrial/terminal benefits exceeding a particular ceiling, the dependant of such deceased employee, would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. 12. In Mumtaz YunusMulani (Smt.) v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2008) 11 SCC 384 , this Court examined the scope of employment on compassionate ground in a similar scheme making the dependant of an employee ineligible for the post in case the family receives terminal/retiral benefits above the sealing limit and held that the judgment in Govind Prakash (supra) had been decided without considering earlier judgments which were binding on the Bench. The Court further held that that the appointment has to be made considering the terms of the scheme and in case the scheme lays down a criterion that if the family of the deceased employee gets a particular amount as retiral/terminal benefits, dependent of the deceased employee would not be eligible for employment on compassionate grounds. 16. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgments/orders stand set aside.” 16. Shri Manish Goyal has also placed reliance on the judgmenmts in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar (Mrs.) and another, 1994 (2) SCC 718 ; Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Trivandrum and others v. S. Kuttan Pillai and others, 1998 (8) SCC 736 ; State Bank of India and another v. Raj Kumar, 2010 (11) SCC 661 ; State of Gujarat and others v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari and another, 2012 (9) SCC 545 ; Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1997 (6) SCC 614 ; Food Corporation of India and others v. Bhanu Lodh and others, 2005 (3) SCC 618 ; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. Sajal Kumar Roy and others, 2009 (4) SCC 170 ; Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. K. Jotheeswara Pillai (D) by L.Rs and others; State of Rajasthan v. Chandra Narain Verma, 1994 (2) SCC 752 and Union of India v. Joginder Sharma, 2002 (8) SCC 65 , in support of his submission. 17. In Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Satinder Kumar, 1995 Supp. 17. In Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Satinder Kumar, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 597, the Supreme Court has also held that the High Court should not compel the appointing authorities to appoint a person to a particular post possessing merely a minimum qualification and should only direct the authority to consider the appointment of the candidate to the post commensurate with his qualification, therefore, when in that case, the High Court directed the Corporation to appoint the respondent to the post of Clerk only on the ground that he possessed the minimum qualification for eligibility, namely, Matriculation, the Supreme Court has modified the order of the High Court in appeal by special leave. It was held that such order directing the Corporation to appoint the respondent to the post of Clerk only because he possessed the minimum qualification was not proper and the order of the High Court has been substituted by the Supreme Court directing the appellant Corporation to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground commensurate with his qualification. 18. In Sushma Gosain v. Union of India and others, AIR 1989 SC 1976 , the Supreme Court held as under : “It can be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate ground, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment, supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” 19. Aforesaid judgment was approved and the principle laid down therein was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Phoolwati v. Union of India and others, AIR 1991 SC 469 . 20. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the nature of the right, which a dependent can claim while seeking employment on compassionate ground. The Court has observed as under : “It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointment in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The Court has observed as under : “It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. 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. 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 must less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, 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 it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family...... ......The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose, it must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose, it must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.... Unmindful of this legal position, some Governments and public authorities have been offering compassionate employment sometimes as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased..... The decision does not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of course.... The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition for such employment is not a vested right.... The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis.” 21. The same view has been reiterated in Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301 ; State of Bihar v. Samsuz Zoha, AIR 1996 SC 1961 ; Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar, (1996) 4 SCC 560 ; and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 6 SCC 394 . It has categorically been held that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of course not being a vested right. 22. In Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singh, JT 1997 (8) SC 332, the Hon’ble Supreme Court placed reliance upon the judgments referred to above and observed that the object of providing for compassionate employment is only to relieve the family from financial hardship, therefore, an ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. 23. Similarly, in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and another, (1996) 8 SCC 23 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated and followed the law laid down in Umesh Nagpal’s case (supra) and directed the applicants involved therein to apply for employment on compassionate ground “ by giving full details of the family circumstances and the economic conditions”. 24. 23. Similarly, in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and another, (1996) 8 SCC 23 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated and followed the law laid down in Umesh Nagpal’s case (supra) and directed the applicants involved therein to apply for employment on compassionate ground “ by giving full details of the family circumstances and the economic conditions”. 24. In Director of Education (Secondary) and another v. Pushpendra Kumar and others, (1998) 5 SCC 192 , the Supreme Court has observed as under : “The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of a livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both the ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision. Care has, therefore, to be taken that a provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provision, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds for the dependant of a deceased employee.” 25. Undoubtedly, in Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India and others, (2000) 6 SCC 493 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that appointment on compassionate ground is not a vested right but it should not be denied in deserving cases for the reason that it would be tantamount to denial of economical and social justice as enshrined in the Constitution and law must be, in its adaptability and flexibility, applied depending upon a situation for the benefit of the society. 26. In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, JT 2000 (10) SC 156, the Hon’ble Supreme Court again reiterated that the purpose of the rules providing for compassionate employment is only to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner who had left the family in pecuniary and without any means of livelihood, but such an appointment cannot be held as if a reservation for the dependents of the deceased Government servant who died in harness. In Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T., Nellore v. C.M. Pawana Kumari, 2001 AIR SCW 4779, the Supreme Court held that direction cannot be issued to appoint a person on compassionate ground dehores the scheme framed by the employer nor the Court has a power to modify the scheme or rules framed in this regard. 27. In Surya Kant Kadam v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 2001 SC 3145, the Supreme Court held that in absence of any statutory rules, appointment on compassionate ground can be governed by the executive instructions and in spite of the fact that the said instructions may not have a statutory force, the same are bound to be observed by the employer. 28. While reiterating the purpose of making appointment on compassionate ground, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi, 2002 (2) LLJ 773 , held that the main object behind giving such employment is to provide immediate financial help to the family of the deceased employee. Such appointment cannot be made in absence of Rules or Instructions. Application for such employment must be made within the period prescribed by the Rules/Instructions. Application made at a belated stage cannot be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, the purpose of making such appointment stands evaporated. 29. The issue involved herein requires consideration in the light of the settled legal principles discussed herein above. Application for such employment must be made within the period prescribed by the Rules/Instructions. Application made at a belated stage cannot be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, the purpose of making such appointment stands evaporated. 29. The issue involved herein requires consideration in the light of the settled legal principles discussed herein above. The Rules have been carved out as an exception to the service jurisprudence, which mandatorily require that any appointment in public office is to be made in consonance to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as any appointment, even on temporary or ad hoc basis, if found to be violative of the said provisions of the Constitution, would remain unenforceable being in valid. Since the Instructions 79 of the Corporation and Clause-21 have specifically been provided in respect of relaxation in favour of relatives of deceased employee, who dies in harness, the entire instructions of any provision are to be read. 30. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 31. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ——————