JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing communication dated 5.11.2002 whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Briefly stated the material facts are as under. 2. The petitioner's father, who was working as Post Master in the Post Office at Banihal, died on 12.10.1994 in a cross firing between the militants and security forces. The mother of the petitioner thereafter submitted an application dated 1.11.1994 to the Respondent No. 2, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in regard to the petitioner. Since the petitioner on the said date was a minor and studying in class 10th, he was informed by the respondents that his case would be considered upon attaining the minimum eligibility of 18 years. 3. It appears that the petitioner thereafter passed his 10+2 examination in December, 1999 session and pursuant thereto the Circle Level Selection Committee on 8/9th of June, 2000 after consideration rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the financial status of the family of the deceased did not justify the compassionate appointment inasmuch as terminal benefits worth Rs. 1,85,613/- were paid to the family after the death of the official. It was also held that as per the certificate dated 9.3.2000 issued by the Tehsildar, Banihal, the deceased official had left a house and landed property worth Rs. 49,350/- wherefrom the family was getting a monthly pension of Rs. 167/-. Besides this, it was also held that family pension @ Rs. 4461 plus DA (Rs. 6,256/- in 1999) was being paid to the widow of the deceased official. Above all, it was held that only 5% of the vacancies were earmarked for compassionate appointment on merit and that there were no vacancies against which the petitioner could have been appointed. First round of litigation 4. The petitioner challenged the rejection order in SWP No. 199 of 2001, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 20.3.2002, upholding the rejection order of the respondents on the grounds firstly that no vacancy was available and secondly that the family income of the deceased was such as did not warrant any compassionate appointment. 5. The petitioner challenged the rejection order in SWP No. 199 of 2001, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 20.3.2002, upholding the rejection order of the respondents on the grounds firstly that no vacancy was available and secondly that the family income of the deceased was such as did not warrant any compassionate appointment. 5. This judgment was challenged in LPA(SWP) No. 119 of 2002, which was allowed and directions were issued to the respondents to re-consider the issue as regards; (i) income and also the size of the family, (ii) the number of vacancies, which were available in the year 1996 and during the years when the matter was pending under consideration; (iii) to determine and examine the question that in offering and filling the vacancies, what was the criteria adopted and as to why appellant could not be accommodated. The reasons for allowing the appeal can be seen from the below reproduced para of the judgment. "It be seen that the appellant attained the age of 18 years in 1996. For three years, his case was under process. As to what was the quota available during this period was required to be taken note of. This was not a case of delay. As a matter of fact the Union of India and its functionaries had assured that as soon as the appellant attains the age of 18 years, his case would be processed. As a matter of fact his case was under process. The delay if any in setting the matter lay with the respondents and not with the appellant." 6. Pursuant to the directions aforementioned, the respondents appears to have considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the same as can be seen from communication dated 5.11.2002, which is the order impugned in the present petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the fact that pensionary benefits were being provided to the family of the deceased could not have been a factor for rejecting the case of the petitioner and that the said ground could not have been a basis yet again for the rejection of the case of the petitioner for the second time in the light of the observations and directions passed by the Division Bench in LPA(SWP) No. 119/2002. 8. 8. The second issue urged was that the respondents had not dealt with at all with the issue of quota that was available during the period as noticed by the Division Bench nor was the criteria disclosed for offering and filling up of the vacancies within that quota and that the matter had been dealt with casually by the Official Respondents. 9. In response to the writ petition, the stand taken by the respondents is that the deceased official had expired in militancy related activity on 12.10.1994 when the petitioner was a minor. The petitioner was informed that his case could be considered only after attaining the age of majority, which he did on 14.1.1996 when he passed his matriculation examination. However, the petitioner chose to do nothing in that regard and in 1999 after passing his 10+2 examination applied for the post of Postal Assistant for which the prescribed qualification was 10+2. 10. It was stated that had the petitioner been in dire need of compassionate appointment, he could have preferred his claim for the appointment on compassionate grounds immediately in January, 1996 itself and not waited till 1999. It is stated that pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench, the matter was re-considered as regards the vacancy position which was as under: Years 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Grand Total Vacancies Nil 20 03 07 10 11 09 60 Offered for compassionate appointments Nil 1 Nil 02 01 Nil Nil 04 11. It was stated that as per the details mentioned above, only three vacancies were to be filled up on compassionate basis, but four had been filled up purely on merit with respect to dependant's, assets and liabilities left by the deceased-officials. It is admitted that one vacancy had been filled in excess. 12. The details and reasons for those appointed on compassionate basis were reflected in the reply affidavit, which was as under: "1. Sh. H.N. Koul (Ex PA Srinagar Dn) & F/o Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Koul was suffering from Diabetic Nephropathy following total kidney failure. The deceased official spent all of his life earnings to fight with his disease and expired on 29.4.1998 leaving behind his (i) Widow (ii) three marriageable unemployed young daughters and one son. Deceased official had built a small house at Mozasarla Au-rangabad Tehsil Bahadurgarh, Distt. Kuldeep Kumar Koul was suffering from Diabetic Nephropathy following total kidney failure. The deceased official spent all of his life earnings to fight with his disease and expired on 29.4.1998 leaving behind his (i) Widow (ii) three marriageable unemployed young daughters and one son. Deceased official had built a small house at Mozasarla Au-rangabad Tehsil Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jajjar Haryana by taking House Building Advance which yield no income as per certificate issued by Tehsildar Bahadurgarh. Amount of HBA worth Rs. 76,556/- was also outstanding as on date of death. Family had also some ancestral property in Kashmir Valley, but yield no income under the prevailing circumstances. 2. Sh. Mohd. Sidiq Dar (Ex. Gr D Srinagar Dn) and F/o Miss Rehana Akhter expired while in service on 17.1.1977 leaving behind his (i) one illiterate wife (ii) one adopted son & (iii) one daughter with D.O.B. as 1.4.1977. Mother of Miss Rehana was sustained upto 31.3.1999 on family pension which ceased to be paid w.e.f. 1.4.99. She applied for appointment on compassionate grounds after she become eligible. Inquires whether his adopted brother was living with her as well looking after her or not was got conducted through Addl. Deputy Commissioner Srinagar and found negative as per his letter No. 405/SM/AC/300/SRO dated 28.6.1999. Moreover as per certificate issued by Tehsildar Srinagar (Revenue Department) vide his No. 4134/M/98 dated 04.02.1999, the applicant had no sufficient income available to sustain herself. 3. Sh. T.N. Bhat (Ex PA Srinagar Dn) and F/O Sh. Sandeep Bhat expired on 30.3.93 leaving behind (i) one widow (ii) one daughter and (iii) one son. The family of deceased had received terminal benefits of Rs. 89,841/- only and family pension @ Rs. 2472/- PM and had also migrated from Kashmir valley leaving behind property worth Rs. 90,000/- deriving income of Rs. 100 only therefrom. Sh. Sandeep Bhat was 10+2 pass in it Dn. 13. It was stated that 5% of vacancies meant for compassionate appointment are computed on circle basis and not on All India basis. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 15. From the material on record, it, thus, becomes clear that only three vacancies were available to be filled up on compassionate basis in accordance with the policy and the rules applicable for compassionate appointment in the present case. 16. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 15. From the material on record, it, thus, becomes clear that only three vacancies were available to be filled up on compassionate basis in accordance with the policy and the rules applicable for compassionate appointment in the present case. 16. The case of the petitioner cannot be said to be any better than the ones', who have been given appointment during the relevant time. According to the stand of the respondents, as against three vacancies, one in excess had been appointed on compassionate basis. The petitioner has not sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the appointments on compassionate basis made in regard to the aforementioned candidates on account of the limited availability of vacancies, which were required to be filled under the said category. The rejection of the petitioner's case, therefore, cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or perversity. 17. Apart from the above, it needs to be seen that the deceased-official had died on 12th of October, 1994 when the petitioner was a minor. He became a major in the year 1996 when he completed his matriculation but kept silent till 1999. Only in the year 1999, after passing 10+2 examination, he pressed for compassionate appointment against the post of Postal Assistant. Had the family of the petitioner, in fact, been under financial distress and penury, nothing could have prevented the petitioner from approaching this court in the year 1996 alone after attaining majority. The fact that the petitioner as also his family has seen through all the years since 1994 till date is a fact, which would indicate that the family had successfully managed to overcome the hardships, if any, caused on account of the death of the deceased. 18. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is with a view to help the family of the deceased, who dies in harness from living a life of penury and distress on account of the death of the bread earner. 19. Law with regard to the compassionate appointment has been clearly stated by various judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is with a view to help the family of the deceased, who dies in harness from living a life of penury and distress on account of the death of the bread earner. 19. Law with regard to the compassionate appointment has been clearly stated by various judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court. In V. Sivamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (2008) 13 SCC 730 , it was held that Article 16 of the Constitution bars discrimination in employment on the ground only of descent, but where the policy provides for compassionate appointment in the case of an employee, who dies in harness or an employee, who is medically invalided, such a provision is based on a classification, which is not on the ground of descent. The classification is based on another condition in addition to descent: that is death of employee in harness, or medical invalidation of the employee while in service. 20. The concept of compassionate appointment is, thus, an exception to the general rule that employment must be offered strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This exception is carved out in the interest of justice in certain exigencies by way of a policy, which partakes the character of service rules. 21. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138 , the Apex Court observed as under:- "........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 much 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 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 dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution........" ".........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." 22. While summing up, the principles laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments, in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India and others, (2011) 4 SCC 209 , in para 20 of the judgment, the Apex Court held as under:- "20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, an no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz., parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts." 23. The Apex Court in Commissioner of Public Instructions & Ors. v. K.R. Vishwanath, 2005 (7) SCC 206 while relying upon Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1989 (4) SCC 468 , State of UP & Ors. v. Paras Nath, 1998 (2) SCC 412 , State of Haryana & Ors. The Apex Court in Commissioner of Public Instructions & Ors. v. K.R. Vishwanath, 2005 (7) SCC 206 while relying upon Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1989 (4) SCC 468 , State of UP & Ors. v. Paras Nath, 1998 (2) SCC 412 , State of Haryana & Ors. v. Rani Devi & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 2445 held that the appointment on compassionate grounds could not be claimed as a matter of right, but was envisaged for providing livelihood to the family, who may not be able to make both the ends meet. It was held that compassionate appointment was in the nature of exception and should not unduly interfered with the rights of those, who are otherwise available and eligible for appointment. Keeping in view the aforementioned principles of law as also the facts of the case, the order of rejection dated 5.11.2002 cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or perversity. I find no merit in the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed along with connected applications.