JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 20.06.2007, 23.01.2007 and 23.02.2007 passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the present petition are as under: 2.1. The father of the petitioner was serving as a Watchman in the Nadiad Irrigation Sub-Division, under the administrative control of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and he died on 22.11.1998 while in service. At the time of his death the petitioner was minor. The date of birth of the petitioner is 30.07.1984. 2.2. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner made an application on 21.10.2004, after attaining majority claiming compassionate appointment. The aforesaid application has been made after delay of 2 years. 2.3. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was considered by the respondent authorities and was rejected. The same was subject matter of challenge before this Court in writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 23455 of 2006, wherein by the order dated 21.11.2006, the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. 2.4. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation requesting the respondents to give him compassionate appointment. 2.5. By the orders dated 23.01.2007 and 23.02.2007, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 rejected the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The petitioner again preferred writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6215 of 2007 before this Court. By the order dated 08.03.2007, this Court again directed the petitioner to make a representation and also directed the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law. 2.6. Ultimately, after 2 rounds of litigation, the respondents vide order dated 20.06.2007 again reiterated earlier stand and rejected the case of the petitioner by assigning various reasons. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Kirit R. Patel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned action of the respondents in not granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Kirit R. Patel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned action of the respondents in not granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the petitioner is S.S.C. passed and he cleared the same in the year 2002 and after clearing the same, he again preferred an application for compassionate appointment, however, the respondents have illegally rejected the same by stating that at the relevant time his family received the terminal benefits to the tune of Rs. 1.16 lakhs and his family was receiving a family pension of Rs. 2,568/-. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned AGP Mr. Ishan Joshi has submitted that the impugned action of the respondents denying the compassionate appointment to the petitioner is just and proper. He has submitted that at the relevant time, when the father of the petitioner had passed away, there was a major sister of the petitioner was eligible for applying for the compassionate appointment, but she did not do so and ultimately, the petitioner awaited for all these years and after becoming major, he filed an application seeking compassionate appointment after delay of 2 years. He has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Local Administration Department & Anr. V/s. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, (2011) 13 SCC 42 . He has submitted that at that time the petitioner was minor and the sister of the petitioner, who was major, could have applied for compassionate appointment. He has submitted that after all these years, the very purpose for which the scheme was promulgated by the State Government to provide minimum financial assistance to the family gets diluted and hence, no orders at this stage, after passage of so many years for granted compassionate appointment. 5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 6. The fact, which is established, is that when the father of the petitioner died in the year 1998, the petitioner was minor. However, his sister was major and qualified, but she did not apply for compassionate appointment. Thus, if the family was in need of minimum financial assistance, the sister of the petitioner, who was qualified for applying for compassionate appointment, did not choose to do so. However, his sister was major and qualified, but she did not apply for compassionate appointment. Thus, if the family was in need of minimum financial assistance, the sister of the petitioner, who was qualified for applying for compassionate appointment, did not choose to do so. The petitioner was minor at that time and after becoming major in the year 2002, he filed an application seeking compassionate appointment. The respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner by observing that the family of the petitioner was already receiving pension of Rs. 2,568/- per month and at the relevant time, they were provided an amount of Rs. 1,16,000/-. It also mentions that the sister of the petitioner, though was qualified did not apply for compassionate appointment. The impugned order dated 20.06.2007 refers to all these aspects and it was decided by the State Government that since the condition of the family of the petitioner was not penurious, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected. Thus, the post for compassionate appointment cannot be reserved for any member of the family of the deceased employee. When the sister of the petitioner was qualified, she could have applied for compassionate appointment, but she did not choose to do so. 7. This Court does not find any illegality/perversity in the impugned order dated 20.06.2007 rejecting the case of the petitioner. The respondents have precisely held that the compassionate appointment cannot be granted to any family members as per their own convenience and the State Government cannot reserve post for such family member and await for him to become major. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu (supra), which read as under: "11. It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the bread winner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind. 12. Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time but having regard to the delays in the administrative process and several other relevant factors such as the number of already pending claims under the scheme and availability of vacancies etc. normally the appointment may come after several months or even after two to three years. It is not our intent, nor it is possible to lay down a rigid time limit within which appointment on compassionate grounds must be made but what needs to be emphasised is that such an appointment must have some bearing on the object of the scheme. 13. In this case the respondent was only 11 years old at the time of the death of his father. The first application for his appointment was made on July 2, 1993, even while he was a minor. Another application was made on his behalf on attaining majority after 7 years and 6 months of his father's death. In such a case, the appointment cannot be said to sub-serve the basic object and purpose of the scheme. It would rather appear that on attaining majority he staked his claim on the basis that his father was an employee of the Municipality and he had died while in service. In the facts of 10 the case, the municipal authorities were clearly right in holding that with whatever difficulty, the family of Meenakshisundaram had been able to tide over the first impact of his death. In the facts of 10 the case, the municipal authorities were clearly right in holding that with whatever difficulty, the family of Meenakshisundaram had been able to tide over the first impact of his death. That being the position, the case of the respondent did not come under the scheme of compassionate appointments." In the case before the Supreme Court, the family member, who applied for the post for 11 years old at the time of the death of his father and he applied for compassionate appointment after attaining majority, the Apex Court has held that in such a case, the appointment cannot be said to sub-serve the basic object and purpose of the scheme. The Supreme Court has specifically held that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succor to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the bread winner. 8. In the present case, though the sister of the petitioner was eligible for applying for compassionate appointment, she did not do so and hence, the present petitioner would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. 9. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition fails. Rule is discharged.