JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The petitioner, who happens to be an aspirant to be appointed on the basis of policy for making appointment on compassionate ground, has approached this Court by way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with following prayers. A. A writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order dated 9th June 2011 passed by the Dy. Secretary Education Department Annexed at Annexure-A and further may be directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, in the interest of justice. B. Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition to stay the order dated 9th June 2011 passed by the Dy. Secretary Education Department Annexed at AnnexureA and further may be directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, in the interest of justice. C. Any other appropriate relief grantable by this Hon’ble Court may kindly be granted in the interest of justice. 3. The facts in brief as gathered from the petition and required to adjudicate the controversy deserves to be setout as under : 3.1 The petitioner's husband viz. Ramjibhai J. Maroo was serving as Asst. Teacher in the M. J. Doshi High school, Talaja, Bhavnagar and after rendering services for more than 13 years he passed away on 8th June 2000 during the service due to cancer. As there was no earning member in the family and the petitioner being the widow applied for compassionate appointment on 6th November 2000 through District Education Officer, Bhavnagar. The application was submitted along with all the requisite documents as required. Since there is no reply from the respondent authorities, once again the petitioner requested vide letter dated 6th December 2001 to the authorities to take early decision on her application. Thereafter, again on 24th April 2002 the petitioner makes a request to the respondent authorities to consider her application for compassionate appointment. As there was no reply from the authorities, again the petitioner approached on 30th May 2002 to the respondent authorities and shown her willingness to join the services even to the post of Class3. Thereafter, again on 24th April 2002 the petitioner makes a request to the respondent authorities to consider her application for compassionate appointment. As there was no reply from the authorities, again the petitioner approached on 30th May 2002 to the respondent authorities and shown her willingness to join the services even to the post of Class3. The authorities did not decide the application for around 2 years and after the period of 2 years, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment came to be rejected by the Director of Education vide his reply dated 25th June 2002 on the ground that the condition no.7(a) of the Resolution dated 10th March 2000 is not satisfied and therefore, the petitioner can make application as and when the post fall vacant in the school within the period of five years from the date of death of husband of the petitioner. 3.2 Thereafter, on 24th February 2003, the petitioner made application for the post of clerknon teaching staff and shown willingness to be appointed as Clerk, as one post of clerk is lying vacant with the school. The petitioner, as there was no reply from the authorities has made another application dated 4th September 2003 and ready and willing to work on the post of Peon. Thereafter, few more applications were made by the petitioner in the subsequent years. 3.3 In the meanwhile, as the five years were lapsed, on 10th March 2005, the petitioner made another application to which certain querries were raised by the Joint Director Secondary Department by his letter dated 15th January 2008 addressed to the District Development Officer, Bhavnagar. The District Development Officer, Bhavnagar vide his reply dated 30th May 2008 satisfied the querries stating that two posts of Class3 are lying vacant relying school report and same was intimated to the Dy. Secretary, Education Department on 28th November 2008. On 29th July 2009, the petitioner declared her immovable property. However, thereafter on being asked to produce the Certificate approved by the Municipal Engineer of Valuation of her immovable property and domestics therein and plan of the house by letter dated 27th November 2010, the petitioner produced the said Certificate on 1st December 2010. On 29th July 2009, the petitioner declared her immovable property. However, thereafter on being asked to produce the Certificate approved by the Municipal Engineer of Valuation of her immovable property and domestics therein and plan of the house by letter dated 27th November 2010, the petitioner produced the said Certificate on 1st December 2010. 3.4 Thereafter, the application of the petitioner was rejected on 9th June 2011 on the ground that the authority is not satisfied that the petitioner is that much poor as well as considering the ratio laid down in S.C.A. No.11777 of 2009. The above judgment is rather supporting the case of the petitioner. Hence, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order, the petitioner filed the present application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned is passed without taking into consideration the documents which are on record and against the Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner could not have been denied the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of respondent being not satisfied that the petitioner is that much poor, though the petitioner fulfills all the criteria of the Government and having good qualification. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent authority has erred in not properly appreciating the case of the petitioner even though other similarly situated persons were considered by the very same respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent being the State Authority, it is expected that they should act objectively in the larger interest of justice and in the manner that the public right and interest may be safeguarded/ protected and may not be adversely affected at the instance of the act of the State instrumentality. It is submitted that in the present case, the respondents have acted in the mode and manner which amounts to unbecoming of the State instrumentality and that too after long time and after consuming much money and time. It is further submitted that respondents have failed in considering the difficulties likely to be faced by the petitioner as the deceased left behind him four minor children and a mother. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petition is required to be allowed. 7. It is further submitted that respondents have failed in considering the difficulties likely to be faced by the petitioner as the deceased left behind him four minor children and a mother. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petition is required to be allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent – State contended that none of the fundamental or legal right of the petitioner has been violated because of any action or inaction on the part of the present respondent and therefore, the present petition is not maintainable in law and the same deserves to be dismissed in limine. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent – State further submitted that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 9th June 2011. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment had been rejected as the family of the deceased could not be said to be in a very pitiable condition as the family of the deceased had received an amount of Rs.2,08,238/- and an amount of Rs.5,520/- pension per month being paid and therefore, respondent could not be said to be in harness. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further submitted that the main object of the policy for giving compassionate appointment is to give immediate financial relief to the dependant of the deceased and as the husband of the petitioner expired on 6th June 2000, now the said object will not survive in the present case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that as per the Government Resolution dated 10th March 2000, the main object of the policy is to give relief in financial stringency and to assist the family to cope with unexpected critical situation by giving appointment to one family member of the deceased employee, who dies during the service leaving without any means of livelihood and in the present case, the sufficient amount is being received by the family after the death of the employee and from the said amount family can be maintained very well. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed in 2010 (11) SCC Page 661 in para 8. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed in 2010 (11) SCC Page 661 in para 8. In is held that it is now well settled that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons, to participate in the selection process. The dependents of employees, who die in harness, do not have 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 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. An appointment under scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore, that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create any right in favour of the applicant. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further submitted that another decision relied on by the petitioner passed in 2011 (13) SCC page 131 in para 7, in which it is held that on going through the judgment passed by the High Court, it is evident that it is based on a complete misconception about the scheme of compassionate appointments. Contrary to the High Court’s observation, indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the first precondition to bring the case under the scheme of “Compassionate Appointment”. The very purpose and object of the scheme is to provide immediate succor to the family of an employee that, on his death, may suddenly find itself in a State of destitution. Contrary to the High Court’s observation, indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the first precondition to bring the case under the scheme of “Compassionate Appointment”. The very purpose and object of the scheme is to provide immediate succor to the family of an employee that, on his death, may suddenly find itself in a State of destitution. If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial deprivation is taken out from the scheme of compassionate appointments, it would turn out to be a reservation in favour of the dependents of an employee who died while in service which would be directly in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 12. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has continuously observed in number of cases on compassionate ground that compassionate appointments are an exception to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, a claim of the dependent of the deceased employee is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family due to the death of an employee while in service. Therefore, it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 and all compassionate appointment are to be made as per the rules and regulations framed in this regard. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that appointment on compassionate ground would be illegal in absence of any scheme providing therefore such scheme must be commensurate with the constitutional scheme of equality. Learned counsel for the respondent-State therefore, requested to confirm the order impugned passed by the authorities and dismissed the present petition. 13. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record and proceedings. 14. The present petition is against the order dated 9th June 2011 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Education Department whereunder the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment came to be rejected. As per his understanding, the family cannot be said to have left in indigent position warranting any compassionate appointment and he appears to have taken into consideration the GID's Circular dated 29th March 2017. 15. As per his understanding, the family cannot be said to have left in indigent position warranting any compassionate appointment and he appears to have taken into consideration the GID's Circular dated 29th March 2017. 15. This order is sought to be supported by learned counsel for the respondent on various grounds, which have been summarized by this Court in paragraph nos.7 to 12. By and large they are based upon the broad principle indicating that the compassionate appointment is to be offered only when there is an exceptional case for offering the same and compassionate appointment scheme cannot be treated as regular source or mode of appointment and recruitment. The compassionate appointment is offered only to help the bereaved family to come over the situation befallen upon them on account of demise of earning member inharness. The aforesaid broad principle governing the compassionate appointment have been pleaded by the learned AGP. But, according to me what is important is the policy, which time and again has undergone changed for offering compassionate appointment to the member of bereaved family, who lost its earning member inharness. The State authorities have therefore, framed policy so as to naturally obviate any subjectivity in offering the compassionate appointment. The framing of policy by the State authority can never be said incorrect and/or deprecable and if the policy permits, member of the bereaved family be treated as eligible for compassionate appointment and that member has to be offered compassionate appointment as the same becomes the member's right under Article14 of the Constitution of India. 16. Therefore, in the instant case, the fact of the demise of the earning member in the family, who died inharness becomes important. The husband of the petitioner died inharness on 8th June 2000. The petitioner is qualified as she is holding degree of B.A. And B.Ed. The compassionate policy prevalent on the date, therefore, could get attracted and will have to be applied in case of the present petitioner. The copy of the policy placed on record as recorded by this Court on 16th February 2018 would clearly indicate that in the very inception of the policy, it is unequivocally stated that for being eligible to receive the compassionate appointment, there is no prescribed income limit. The copy of the policy placed on record as recorded by this Court on 16th February 2018 would clearly indicate that in the very inception of the policy, it is unequivocally stated that for being eligible to receive the compassionate appointment, there is no prescribed income limit. The order impugned clearly indicate that the respondent has considered the Government Circular dated 23rd September 2007, which in my view would not be available to be relied upon by the respondent for denying the compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The provision of law is clear qua applicability of the compassionate appointment in a given case as per the prevalent policy, then it was incumbent upon the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner as per the policy prevalent, which is produced on record and if as per the same the petitioner is found eligible then she ought to have offered the compassionate appointment at appropriate stage. 17. Relying on the decisions of Supreme Court in case of Balbir Kaur and another Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., and others reported in (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 493 and in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 138, this Court is of the view that prevalent policy at the time of death of the employee is applicable and time lag would not be an impediment in ordering compassionate appointment. 18. The Court is therefore, require to issue appropriate direction in the interest of justice. The Court is also mindful of the fact that the death is occurred in the year 2000 and the petition is required to be allowed in the year 2018. But that in itself would not deter the Court from issuing appropriate direction. Hence, the petition is allowed. The respondent no.1 is hereby directed to consider the petitioner's case in light of the prevalent policy dated 10th March 2000, which is produced on record and if the petitioner is found eligible in accordance therewith, then she be appointed forthwith on the appropriate post and the entire exercise should be over within the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the writ of this order. Rule made absolute. However, there shall be no order as to costs.