ORDER : A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. The petitioner's father, late Basavaraj S. Vastrad, was a fireman in Fire Brigade Office, Vijaypur. He died on 25.01.2004 in harness. Petitioner's mother died on 21.05.2004. The petitioner was born on 18.03.1998. The petitioner has a younger sister. An application was submitted on 15.07.2016 to Dist. Fire Brigade Officer, Vijaypur, to provide job on compassionate grounds to the petitioner. Application was rejected by the 1st respondent by issue of an endorsement vide Annexure-J. The request was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not attain the age of 18 years within one year period from the date of death of her father. To quash the endorsement as at Annexure-J and for a mandamus against the respondents to provide job on compassionate grounds, these petitions were filed. 2. Sri. Bapugouda Siddappa, learned advocate contended that the rejection of the petitioner's application is arbitrary, illegal and therefore, there is need to entertain these petitions for consideration. 3. Heard learned advocate and perused the petitions. Point for consideration is, whether the impugned endorsement as at Annexure-J is irrational, capricious and/or illegal? 4. The object of appointment of a dependent of a deceased employee, who died in harness, is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member and not confer a status on the family. Appointment on compassionate grounds has to be made in accordance with the Rules, Regulations, Scheme or administrative instructions, by also taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be sought/ granted at any time in future, as it is not a vested right and must be made in accordance with the Scheme or administrative instructions, as the object of providing such employment is to enable the family to get over financial crisis, which it faced, at the time of death of bread earner. 5. In Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar and another, (1996) 1 SCC 301 , case of the applicant who was four years old, when her father, an employee, died in harness was considered with reference to a contention that, as the claimant was a minor, when father died in harness, compassionate circumstances having continued till the date he filed an application for appointment was entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. The contention was not accepted and while upholding the rejection of such a claim for appointment, it has been held by the Apex Court as follows: "3. .......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." (Emphasis supplied) 6. In Union of India and others v. Bhagwan Singh, (1995) 6 SCC 476 , a railway servant died on 12.09.1972. He left behind wife, two major sons and the respondent, a minor son aged 12 years. The claimant attained majority in 1980-81. Applications filed by him seeking appointment on compassionate grounds was dismissed on 21.09.1987, 19.06.1990 and 11.06.1991. The age of the claimant, when he made the last application was 33 years, filed nearly 20 years after the death of the railway servant. Decision of the railway administration, refusing to grant appointment on compassionate ground, when assailed in the Administrative Tribunal was held as unjustified and the application was directed to be reconsidered and appointment on compassionate grounds provided, if the applicant is otherwise qualified. In the appeal filed by the railway administration, after noticing the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival contentions, while holding that the application is patently barred, Apex Court has held as follows: "8. It is evident, that the facts in this case point out, that the plea for compassionate employment is not to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis or distress which resulted as early as September 1972. At the time Ram Singh died on 12-9-1972, there were two major sons and the mother of the children who were apparently capable of meeting the needs in the family and so they did not apply for any job on compassionate grounds. For nearly 20 years, the family has pulled on, apparently without any difficulty. At the time Ram Singh died on 12-9-1972, there were two major sons and the mother of the children who were apparently capable of meeting the needs in the family and so they did not apply for any job on compassionate grounds. For nearly 20 years, the family has pulled on, apparently without any difficulty. In this background, we are of the view that the Central Administrative Tribunal acted illegally and wholly without jurisdiction in directing the Authorities to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds and to provide him with an appointment, if he is found suitable. We set aside the order of the Tribunal, dated 22-2-1993. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs." (Emphasis supplied) 7. In Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 : ( AIR 1997 SC 3887 ), request for appointment on compassionate grounds was made after a lapse of 14 years i.e., when deceased employee's son attained majority and request having been rejected by the employer on the ground that departmental circular prescribed maximum three years for making such request, and the decision when assailed in a writ petition before High Court, the same having been allowed by holding that the period of three years would be applicable from the date the claimant becomes major, when challenged by the Board before the Apex Court, by observing that, if the family members of the deceased employee can manage 14 years after the employee's death, one of the legal heirs cannot be allowed to make a claim as though it is a line of succession by virtue of right of inheritance, appeal filed by Board was allowed. 8. In Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Anil Badyakar and others, (2009) 13 SCC 112 : ( AIR 2009 SC 2534 ), death of employee took place on 31.12.1981 and his widow sought appointment and subsequently, a daughter also put forth her claim on 07.03.1983. Thereafter, there was an understanding between the family members and second daughter's husband, who was nominated for seeking appointment, claim having been made, compassionate appointment on provisional basis was given to the nominee on 10.05.1993, but the competent authority which was to grant post-facto approval cancelled the proposal on the ground that the appointment could not be given 12 years after the death of employee. The decision, when assailed, writ petition was allowed and appeal filed before Division Bench having been rejected and the employer having approached Apex Court, after survey of the decisions on the subject and by keeping in view the object and burden of providing the appointment on compassionate grounds and the delay of nearly 12 years from the date of death of an employee, orders passed in the writ petition and the writ appeal was set aside and the decision of employer was upheld. 9. In Smt. Sulochana Duttargi v. The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, ILR 2010 Kar 4041, the employee having died on 08.04.1994 leaving behind wife and a son, who was aged about five years, after nearly about 16 years, widow of the deceased employee made an application to provide employment to her son, asked for a mandamus by alleging inaction. While rejecting the writ petition, it was held that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed after a long lapse of time and crisis in the family is over. 10. In Commissioner of Public Instructions and others v. K. R. Vishwanath (2005) 7 SCC 206 : ( AIR 2005 SC 3275 ) respondent's father, who was a Government servant died on 21.12.1977. Respondent was born on 20.10.1977 and was about two months old at the time his father died. Having attained majority on 20.10.1995, he submitted an application on 02.12.1996, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. The said application was rejected on 13.11.1997, on the ground that it had not been filed within one year of attaining the majority. Another application was made on 22.04.1998 and the same was not entertained. Certain amendments having been made to the 1996 Rules, which were operative with effect from 01.04.1999 the respondent filed another application on 29.11.1999 and the same was rejected on 09.06.2000 by stating that no application was pending when the amended Rules came into force and therefore, Rules as amended, has no application to his case. The decision having been assailed in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, by an order dated, 19.09.2001, application was allowed and Government was directed to consider the case for appointment on compassionate grounds, without regard being had to any period of limitation referred to in the order of rejection, dated 09.06.2000. The decision having been assailed in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, by an order dated, 19.09.2001, application was allowed and Government was directed to consider the case for appointment on compassionate grounds, without regard being had to any period of limitation referred to in the order of rejection, dated 09.06.2000. The said order having been upheld by this Court, when Apex Court was approached by the Government, it was held that the Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in directing the respondent's case for consideration of the appointment in terms of the Rules without taking note of the limitation prescribed. 11. In Ismail P. Jalageri v. State of Karnataka and others, 2011 (2) Kar LJ 189 (DB), it was held that minor dependent of a deceased Government servant will not be eligible to claim appointment on compassionate ground if he does not attain majority within a year from the date of death of Government servant. Therein, application for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted by the petitioner 12 years after the death of his father. The claim having been negated, Karnataka Administrative Tribunal was approached for remedy. The Tribunal having dismissed the application on the ground that the applicant is not eligible to claim appointment on compassionate ground as per Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, writ petition was filed for consideration. The writ petition was dismissed by holding that right to claim appointment on compassionate ground cannot be reserved in favour of a minor until he attains majority. 12. In State Bank of India and another v. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 , Apex Court has held as follows: "8.........The dependents of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme......" (Emphasis supplied) 13. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme......" (Emphasis supplied) 13. The Courts do not have the power to issue a direction to make appointment by way of granting relaxation of eligibility or in contravention of the scheme, which becomes clear from the ratio of decision of the Apex Court in State of M.P. and another v. Dharam Bir (1998) 6 SCC 165 , wherein, it has been held as follows: "31.......The Courts as also the tribunal have no power to override the mandatory provisions of the Rules on sympathetic consideration that a person, though not possessing the essential educational qualifications, should be allowed to continue on the post merely on the basis of his experience. Such an order would amount to altering or amending the statutory provisions made by the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied) 14. From the perusal of the petitions, it is clear that the petitioner's father died while in service on 25.01.2004. On the date of her father's death, petitioner was aged about 6 years. Application for providing of job on compassionate grounds was submitted on 15.07.2016. In between more than 12 years has elapsed. Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the same being not hereditary and is required to be considered in accordance with the schemes or regulations made by the employer. The petitioner's application having been considered in accordance with the Rules made by the State Government, the endorsement as at Annexure-J has been issued. 15. In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2000) 7 SCC 192 : ( AIR 2000 SC 2782 ), Apex Court has held that there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time the applicant becomes major after number of years of death of the employee, unless there is some specific provision in the Rules, as the very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief. 16. 16. As the respondents have considered the claim made by the petitioner on 15.07.2016 in accordance with law, particularly, the amended Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, applicable with effect from 01.04.1999, substituting the existing proviso, the endorsement issued vide Annexure-J, being in conformity with the amended Rule, is neither irrational nor arbitrary much less illegal. The decision as at Annexure-J is in conformity with the case considered by the Apex Court in K. R. Vishwanath ( AIR 2005 SC 3275 ) (supra). As the claim made by the petitioner is contrary to the Rules as has been interpreted by the Apex Court in K. R. Vishwanath's case, no mandamus can be issued to reconsider the claim made for providing appointment on compassionate grounds. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is devoid of merit and rejected.