JUDGMENT : Shekhar B. Saraf, J. 1. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that she has not been given compassionate appointment and her application for the same has been rejected by an order dated November 27, 2017 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Paschim Medinipur. The case of the writ petitioner is that her mother who was an Assistant Teacher in a Government recognized Higher Secondary School died in harness on January 10, 2007. The petitioner had made her application for compassionate appointment within the time frame prescribed. On November 29, 2012 Deputy Secretary, School Education Department, Primary Section upon perusing the representation of the petitioner requested the District Primary School Council to cause an enquiry and send a report to the concerned Department. Subsequently, the writ petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P. 5419(W)/2015 wherein an order was passed by this court as follows:- "Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It appears that the order passed by the Chairman, Paschim Medinipur District Primary School Council has no jurisdiction over the matter. Therefore, the order impugned is set aside. The District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Paschim Medinipur, is directed to consider the matter taking afresh view and also upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorised representative giving him opportunity to show all relevant judgments and documents in his favour. The concerned District Inspector of Schools is to pass a reasoned order by six weeks from the date of communication of his order and to communicate the same by two weeks from the date of passing such order" 2. The concerned District Inspector of Schools is to pass a reasoned order by six weeks from the date of communication of his order and to communicate the same by two weeks from the date of passing such order" 2. In compliance with the above order dated April 20, 2015 hearing was granted to the writ petitioner and after hearing of parties the District Inspector of Schools, Paschim Medinipur passed the following order:- "Having heard the submissions advanced by the petitioner and the Headmistress I am of opinion that in spite of my being eager in favour of employment of the petitioner, I cannot do anything in her favour in compliance with G.O. 697-ES/S/IS-18/08 dated 09.07.2009 [Part-B, Schedule V] where it is clearly stated that - "The expression "Financial Hardship", in relation to income of a deceased teacher or non-teaching staff consisting of up to five members in his family for consideration of appointment under this Sub-Rule, shall mean an amount of income less than the initial gross salary of Group "D" Staff of the State Government at the material point of time". As family income including the Pension and family pension amounts to Rs. 4833 + Rs. 4938 = Rs.9771/- is more than the initial gross salary of Group "D" of the State Government i.e. Rs. 7690/- at the material point of time, the proposal for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be recommended or forwarded to the authority". 3. Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order does not take into account the educational qualification of the petitioner and the post that she is applying for. The order only deals with the formula prescribed for financial hardship and does not take into account any other consideration. He relies on two Division Bench Judgments in support of his contentions. One is Nazrul Islam & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) CHN 339 and the other is Tapan Kumar Barman v. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) CHN 23 . 4. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents submits that the impugned order is as per law and the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment under the scheme of the Government. 4. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents submits that the impugned order is as per law and the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment under the scheme of the Government. He submits that the Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a legal right and is only an exception to Article 16 of the Constitution of India. He submits that if the petitioner does not fall within the four corners of the scheme, compassionate appointment cannot be granted. He relied on a recent unreported judgment of a coordinate bench in the case of Papiya Majumdar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., wherein the factual matrix is similar to the present one and relates to compassionate appointment under the same government order. With the above submissions, he supports the impugned order. 5. Reference may be made to the Supreme Court Judgment in State Bank of India and Another v. Somvir Singh, reported in (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 778 wherein it has been held as follows:- "Appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process. Such appointments are required to be made on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Dependants of employees who died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules, etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be". 6. Reference also needs to be made to the Supreme Court Judgment in I.G. (Karmik) and Others v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, reported in (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 162 wherein it has been held as follows:- "(7) Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. 6. Reference also needs to be made to the Supreme Court Judgment in I.G. (Karmik) and Others v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, reported in (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 162 wherein it has been held as follows:- "(7) Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion." 7. Furthermore, the Apex Court in National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 481 has stated the law on compassionate appointment in the following terms:- "16. All public appointments must be in consonance with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Exceptions craved out therefore are the cases where appointments are to be given to the widow or the dependent children of the employee who died in harness. Such an exception is craved out with a view to see that the family of the deceased employee who has died in harness does not become a destitute. No appointment, therefore, on compassionate ground can be granted to a person other than these for whose benefit the exception has been craved out. Other family members of the deceased employee would not derive any benefit thereunder." 8. Reference should also be made to the Supreme Court Judgment in Union Bank of India and Others v. M.T. Latheesh, reported in (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 350 wherein it has been held as follows:- "(18) It is submitted that the dependent of a deceased employee Will not get any vested or hereditary right to succeed the deceased in the matter of employment. What he is entitled to is a preferential treatment for appointment as against the general principle of appointment. The employer is not under obligation to grant appointment to the dependents. The duty of the employer is only to properly consider the application. ............... ............... What he is entitled to is a preferential treatment for appointment as against the general principle of appointment. The employer is not under obligation to grant appointment to the dependents. The duty of the employer is only to properly consider the application. ............... ............... (31) In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana this Court considered a case of compassionate appointment and the factors necessary for being taken into account before offering compassionate appointment. This Court held that merely death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate employment and that the authority concerned must consider as to whether the family of the deceased employee is unable to meet the financial crisis resulting from the employee's death. This Court also held as under: (SCC p. 140, para 2) "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 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 posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to Relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency." ............... ............... (36) In the present case, by declining the application submitted by the respondent after the proper consideration of the same in the light of the relevant parameters, the appellant Bank cannot be said to have acted in an arbitrary manner regardless of the constitutional principles. (37) It is also settled law that the specially constituted authorities in the rules or regulations like the competent authority in this case are better equipped to decide the cases on facts of the case and their objective finding arrived on the appreciation of the full facts should not be disturbed. (37) It is also settled law that the specially constituted authorities in the rules or regulations like the competent authority in this case are better equipped to decide the cases on facts of the case and their objective finding arrived on the appreciation of the full facts should not be disturbed. Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench by directing appointment has fettered the discretion of the appointing and selecting authorities. The Bank had considered the application of the respondent in terms of the statutory scheme framed by the Bank for such appointment. After that even though the Bank found the respondent ineligible for appointment to its service, the High Court has found him eligible and has ordered his appointment. This is against the law laid down by this Court. It is settled law that the principles regarding compassionate appointment that compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule the appointment has to be exercised only in warranting situations and circumstances existing in granting appointment and guiding factors should be financial condition of the family. The respondent is not entitled to claim relief under the new Scheme because the financial status of the family is much above the criterion fixed in the new Scheme." 9. After going through the judgments passed by the Supreme Court on the issue of compassionate appointment, the following principles emerge:- (a) Appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception craved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process. (b) The right of a dependent of an employee who died in harness for compassionate appointment is based on the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer and there is no right to claim compassionate appointment on any other ground apart from the above scheme conferred by the employer. (c) Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seems to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion. (c) Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seems to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion. (d) Compassionate appointment has to be exercised only in warranting situations and circumstances existing in granting appointment and guiding factors should be financial condition of the family. 10. Having considered the submissions of both parties and after going through the materials on record, I find that both the judgments relied upon by the writ petitioner do not lay down any law contrary to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court as discussed hereinabove. It may be further noted that the present case is required to be examined in the light of the government order being G.O. 697-ES/S/IS-18/08 dated 09.07.2009 [Part-B, Schedule V]. Both the Division Bench judgments were passed prior to coming into force of the above government order and are therefore clearly inapplicable in the present case. 11. This court is of the view that in the case of the writ petitioner, the impugned order has correctly held that the writ petitioner does not fall within the parameters of "Financial Hardship" as per the G.O. 697-ES/S/IS-18/08 dated 09.07.2009 [Part-B, Schedule V]. The petitioner's family income came to Rs. 9771/- that is far more than the initial gross salary of Group D of the State Government of Rs. 7690/- at the material point of time. Accordingly, the petitioner did not fall within the expression 'financial hardship' as defined in the relevant government order. As is clear from the dictum of the Supreme Court decision in the case of State Bank of India (supra) there is no right to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be. Having failed to come within the four corners of the scheme, the writ petitioner cannot have any other right. Having failed to come within the four corners of the scheme, the writ petitioner cannot have any other right. As further held in the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union Bank of India and Others v. M.T. Latheesh (supra) it is settled law that the compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule as envisaged in Article 16 of the Constitution of India, the appointment in such cases has to be exercised only in warranting situations and circumstances existing in granting appointment and guiding factors should be financial condition of the family. 12. One must not lose sight of the object of compassionate appointment - to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. 13. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner herein cannot claim a mandatory right of compassionate appointment unless she fulfils the criteria laid down in the government order. Clearly the petitioner is not falling within the criteria laid down for financial hardship and therefore the order dated November 27, 2017 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Paschim Midnapore requires no interference in the writ jurisdiction. Hence this writ petition fails. 14. Since affidavits have not been exchanged between the parties, the allegations made in the writ petition are not deemed to have been admitted by the respondents. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.