JUDGMENT : S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal claiming to be aggrieved by the judgment and directions of a learned Single Judge who held that the respondents' collective application for compassionate appointment for one of them (both collectively referred hereafter as "the petitioners") should be processed. 2. The petitioners are widow and son of late Roopa Ram who was working as Upper Division Clerk in the office of Additional Chief Medical and Health Officer, Division Jaitaran in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 died on 04/08/2006. In view of this development, Vijay Kumar, elder son of deceased Roopa Ram (hereafter referred to as the "deceased-employee") applied for compassionate appointment-with the consent of his mother i.e. the first petitioner (Jamna Devi) widow of the deceased-employee. His application was accepted and Vijay Kumar was appointed as Ward Boy in the pay scale of Rs.2550-6032. On 19/11/2011 Vijay Kumar unfortunately died due to ill health. In these circumstances, his younger brother (second petitioner hereafter "Deepak") applied for compassionate appointment. His application too was consented by his mother and widow of the deceased-employee. The Senior Medical Officer, Community Health Center forwarded his application to the competent authority. 3. On 21/08/2012 the request for compassionate appointment, was rejected; the rejection letter stated that the petitioners could not be considered the dependent of the deceased Vijay Kumar in terms of the rules governing the compassionate appointment, framed in 1996. The first petitioner Jamna Devi, had applied on the premise that the rules permitted her to nominate another dependent of the late Roopa Ram. 4. The writ petitioners approached this Court contending that the rejection of the application seeking compassionate appointment was arbitrary. It was submitted that late Vijay Kumar was given compassionate appointment upon the untimely death of his father late Roopa Ram. At the time of his appointment, Vijay Kumar was unmarried; and that he continued to be of the same status at the time of his death. The position of the family remained unchanged as their sole bread earner died in harness, when in the employment of the State. It was therefore argued that the application by the second petitioner (Deepak) ought to be construed as one made to fill the post of his father who died in 2006. 5. The position of the family remained unchanged as their sole bread earner died in harness, when in the employment of the State. It was therefore argued that the application by the second petitioner (Deepak) ought to be construed as one made to fill the post of his father who died in 2006. 5. The State had denied the claim arguing that the definition of "dependent" did not include the brother (or mother) of the deceased government servant and that since Vijay Kumar was given the compassionate appointment, the application for compassionate appointment by the second petitioner on the ground that he was the dependent of the deceased-employee - who died far back in 2011 could not be entertained. The State had argued before the learned Single Judge that granting such an application would permit a series of applications on behalf of same employee on one ground or the other. According to the State what is relevant that the cause for the application (for compassionate appointment) or the immediate point of distress ought to be whether the public government servant who died which results in the application, was related to the applicant in such a manner that the latter is a dependent. 6. The State had pointed out that Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the "Rules of 1996") defines 'dependents' in an expansive manner but even within that, the brother of a deceased government servant cannot claim compassionate appointment. Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 is reproduced as follows: "Dependent" means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter (adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter) legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life-time and who were wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death." 7. The State had also relied upon Division Bench ruling of this Court in Hari Ram Vishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (DBCWP No. 1725/2019) decided on 11/03/2019. In Hari Ram Vishnoi (supra) the court had upheld Rule 2(c) and stated as follows:- "11. The State had also relied upon Division Bench ruling of this Court in Hari Ram Vishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (DBCWP No. 1725/2019) decided on 11/03/2019. In Hari Ram Vishnoi (supra) the court had upheld Rule 2(c) and stated as follows:- "11. A bare perusal of Rule 2(c) makes it abundantly clear that except spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her lifetime and who were wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death, other family members are not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground. Suffice it to say that under the scheme of the appointment on compassionate ground envisaged under the Rules of 1996, one brother is not considered to be dependent on another brother for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. This court cannot give the expanded meaning to the definition of 'dependent' so as to include therein any member of the family of the deceased Government servant, converting the appointment on compassionate ground into the appointment by succession, frustrating the spirit of the provisions of the Rules of 1996, which would tend towards arbitrariness and fall foul of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the definition of the 'dependent' set out in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, cannot be said to be under inclusive, arbitrary and ultra vires." 8. The learned Single Judge took note of the previous judgments of this Court in Asha Devi Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan {2005 (1) WLC (Raj.) 237}; as well as another Single Judge ruling in Rajiv Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan { 2008 (2) WLC (Raj.) 393}. The learned Single Judge on the basis of the reasoning extracted below; allowed the writ petition:- "7. Upon hearing the parties, this Court takes note of the precedent law cited above which the respondents are not in a position to refute and finds that in a peculiar circumstance when the father died and the son who had received compassionate appointment also died, the next son was given compassionate appointment by the respondents in pursuance of the aforesaid precedent law. This Court also finds that in the precedent law in an extremely aggravated circumstance where two generations of bread-earners perished while serving the respondents, the extraordinary interpretation of this Court was made. This Court also finds that in the precedent law in an extremely aggravated circumstance where two generations of bread-earners perished while serving the respondents, the extraordinary interpretation of this Court was made. In the present case also, father of petitioner No. 2 i.e. late Shri Roopa Ram expired on 04.8.2006 and his son Vijay was granted compassionate appointment in his place. It is further an admitted position that Vijay has also expired while in service on 19.11.2011. Both the petitioners, being son and wife of late Shri Rupa Ram and brother and mother respectively of Vijay, have requested for compassionate appointment. In this extraordinary misery brought to the family of the petitioner, this Court finds that the precedent law is absolutely applicable and the petitioner No. 2 Deepak Solanki is entitled to compassionate appointment." Analysis & finding:- 9. The deceased-employee in this case, died on 04/08/2006. His elder son was appointed as Ward Boy soon thereafter in 2007. Unfortunately, the elder son (Vijay Kumar) died on 19/11/2011. Thereafter, the petitioners (Vijay Kumar's mother and his younger brother i.e. Deepak) applied for compassionate appointment. Although the cause for seeking compassionate appointment was Vijay Kumar's death, nevertheless the ground urged and the reasoning given in the application was the death of his father Roopa Ram almost 6 years back previous to the application. The State rejected the application on 21/08/2012. 10. A plain reading of the provision i.e. Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 leaves a little doubt that a 'dependent' means spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter (which includes adoptive children) "who were wholly dependent upon the deceased government servant at the time of his/her death". The rule does not include brother or mother of a deceased employee. 11. The judgment of the Division Bench had dealt with this precise issue i.e. the exclusion of a deceased public servant's brother and even while upholding the rule, denied the claim for relief. The observations in Hari Ram Vishnoi (supra) have been extracted. That judgment relied upon; took note of the observations of the Supreme Court in previous rulings such as Umesh Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 138 , LIC Vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (1994) 2 SCC 718 and National Institute of Technology & Ors. Vs. The observations in Hari Ram Vishnoi (supra) have been extracted. That judgment relied upon; took note of the observations of the Supreme Court in previous rulings such as Umesh Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 138 , LIC Vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (1994) 2 SCC 718 and National Institute of Technology & Ors. Vs. Niraj Kumar Singh (2007) 2 SCC 481 and very correctly noticed that converting the appointment on compassionate ground into the appointment by succession would undermine the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 12. Long ago, in the decision reported as Auditor General of India & Ors. Vs. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao 1994 (1) SCC 192 , the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the scope of rules or guidelines allowing compassionate appointments, in the context of their invalidation, by a High Court of such provisions, on the ground that they violated the rule of discrimination on the ground of descent, prescribed by Article 16(2). The Supreme Court highlighted the exceptional nature of such appointments, which do not insist upon the rigors of recruitment, preceding public employment, consistent with the standards set out by Articles 14 and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. The court held that: "This appeal, by special leave, arises against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 20 of 1981 dated February 3, 1981. The respondent made an application to the appellant to appoint him as a clerk as his father died in harness in 1967 while working in the office of the Auditor-General, Government of India at Andhra Pradesh. He was qualified for appointment. He passed his PUC examination and he applied for the appointment on compassionate grounds. The application made on December 26, 1978 since was not considered nor appointed, he filed Writ Petition No. 6173/79 and the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. On appeal, while dismissing, the Division Bench declared that the Memorandum is violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution as the appointment of descendant is ultra vires of Article 16(2). However, while granting leave, the appellant had given an undertaking to absorb him in any vacancy that would arise in future. The respondent appears to have been appointed. He is not represented in the appeal. 2. However, while granting leave, the appellant had given an undertaking to absorb him in any vacancy that would arise in future. The respondent appears to have been appointed. He is not represented in the appeal. 2. The only question that arises for decision is whether the Memorandum is violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution? Article 14 genus provides equality of opportunity and equal protection of the laws and it prohibits discrimination. Article 16(2) species prohibits discrimination, thus: No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. The High Court held that the appointment of son/daughter/near relative (widow) of the erstwhile employee of the Government would tantamount to appointment on descent and therefore is violative of Article 16(2). It is contended for the State that the memorandum envisages appointments purely on compassionate grounds in the circumstances enumerated in Office Memorandum No. 14014/1/77-Estt. (D), Government of India, dated November 25, 1978. It provides that Secretary or Joint Secretary in the Ministries/Departments are competent to appoint, in relaxation of the procedure of recruitment through the Staff Selection Commission or Employment Exchange, but subject to the other requirements set out therein, the son/daughter or near relative of the Government servant (it is stated by the learned Counsel that widow of the deceased is near relative), who dies in harness leaving his family in immediate need of assistance, in the event of there being no other earning member in the family, to a Group 'C' post or Group 'D' post. After the proposal for such appointment has been approved by the Joint Secretary in charge of the Administration or Secretary in the Ministry or Department concerned, it would be made. The memorandum also provides the fulfillment of the qualifications prescribed for the post. So it is not violative of Article 16(2). We find no force to accept in toto. *************** *********** A reading of these various clauses in the memorandum discloses that the appointment on compassionate grounds would not only be to a son, daughter or widow but also to a near relative which was vague or undefined. So it is not violative of Article 16(2). We find no force to accept in toto. *************** *********** A reading of these various clauses in the memorandum discloses that the appointment on compassionate grounds would not only be to a son, daughter or widow but also to a near relative which was vague or undefined. A person who dies in harness and whose members of the family need immediate relief of providing appointment to relieve economic distress from the loss of the breadwinner of the family need compassionate treatment. But all possible eventualities have been enumerated to become a rule to avoid regular recruitment. It Would appear that these enumerated eventualities would be breeding ground for misuse of appointments by compassionate grounds. Articles 16(3) or 16(5) provided exceptions. Further exception must be on constitutionally valid and permissible grounds. Therefore, the High Court is right in holding that the appointment on grounds of descent clearly violates Article 16(2) of the Constitution. But, however, it is made clear that if the appointments are confined to the son/daughter or widow of the deceased Government employee who died in harness and who needs immediate appointment on grounds of immediate need of assistance in the event of there being no other earning member in the family to supplement the loss of income from the bread winner to relieve the economic distress of the members of the family, it is unexceptionable. But in other cases it cannot be a rule to take advantage of the memorandum to appoint the persons to these posts on the ground of compassion. Accordingly, we allow the appeal in part and hold that the appointment in Para 1 of the memorandum is upheld and that appointment on compassionate ground to a son, daughter or widow to assist the family to relieve economic distress by sudden demise in harness of Govt. employee is valid. It is not on the ground descent simpliciter, but exceptional circumstance for the ground mentioned. It should be circumscribed with suitable modification by an appropriate amendment to the memorandum limiting to relieve the members of the deceased employee who died in harness, from economic distress. In other respects Article 16(2) clearly attracted." 13. This idea was underscored in other judgments. In Yogender Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. It should be circumscribed with suitable modification by an appropriate amendment to the memorandum limiting to relieve the members of the deceased employee who died in harness, from economic distress. In other respects Article 16(2) clearly attracted." 13. This idea was underscored in other judgments. In Yogender Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1987) 1 SCC 631 , it was held that: "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." In National Institute of Technology and Ors. Vs. Niraj Kumar Singh (supra) it was held that:- "16. All public appointments must be in consonance with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Exceptions carved 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 carved 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 those for whose benefit the exception has been carved out. Other family members of the deceased employee would not derive any benefit there under." 14. In State Bank of India and Anr. Vs. Somvir Singh 2007 (4) SCC 778 the court again emphasized that:- "... the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, 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." 15. The decision in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Ors. 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." 15. The decision in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 209 reviewed the law declared by the previous rulings of the Supreme Court, and held as follows:- "15. Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognised as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. ... In Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), while emphasising that a compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of course or in posts above Classes III and IV, this Court had observed that: (SCC p. 140, para 2) "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 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. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. 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." ... 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, and 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. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and 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 dependents 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." These principles were applied recently, in Canara Bank and Ors. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar & Ors. 2015 (7) SCC 412 . 16. The authorities therefore, overwhelmingly insist that (a) compassionate appointment cannot be considered as a regular channel of recruitment; (b) it is to be resorted to in case when a public servant dies "in harness" leaving the family in acute financial distress. (c) No one has a right to insist for compassionate appointment, which can be considered only in accordance with the rules. (d) Importantly, categories not defined as belonging to the family or not determined as dependents under the rules cannot claim the benefit; (e) similarly, more than one member of the deceased's family cannot be considered for appointment. (f) Such appointment is admissible against vacancies in the lowest rung of posts. 17. On a fair application of the above principles, this court is of the opinion that the expansive and liberal interpretation of Rule 2(c) adopted by the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is also contrary to the ratio in Hari Ram Vishnoi (supra). The second petitioner could not be considered as a dependent of the deceased Vijay Kumar, his brother. Therefore, he claimed a fresh compassionate appointment on the ground of demise of his father (which took place in 2006). It is also contrary to the ratio in Hari Ram Vishnoi (supra). The second petitioner could not be considered as a dependent of the deceased Vijay Kumar, his brother. Therefore, he claimed a fresh compassionate appointment on the ground of demise of his father (which took place in 2006). Clearly, this is contrary to the law; the family could not be said to be in acute distress, as concededly, Vijay Kumar was in employment, for the period 2007 to end of 2011. Therefore, Deepak's application became in effect one by a second dependent. The danger of accepting such an approach would be that slowly, over a period of time, public employment, or at least a large number of posts would be rendered heritable, clearly contrary to Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. 18. This court, at this stage, notices that apart from the rules (of 1996), there appear to be no guidelines in the State of Rajasthan to ensure that a cap is placed on the number of posts or vacancies which are filled by compassionate appointment. Also, applications are entertained in a routine manner, without any semblance of inquiry regarding hardship of the deceased public employees' family. This approach would encourage an over liberal use of the channel of compassionate appointment which can be resorted to without any limit, despite its not being recognised as a constitutionally sanctioned one. The Supreme Court has emphasized that it is justified only in exceptional cases, to tide over acute financial distress. 19. In this context, this court recollects the "Consolidated Instructions on compassionate appointment" issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Central Government, through Office Memorandum (F. No. 14014/02/2012--Estt. (D)) dated 16 January, 2013 (http://www.nirjaft.res.in/admin/uploads/dac3143de25d81ef712bef3716ecdcbe.pdf accessed on 14-09-2019 at 13.35 PM). This consolidates instructions applicable to compassionate appointments to all vacancies in the Government of India. Guideline 7 reads inter alia, as follows: "7. DETERMINATION/AVAILABILITY OF VACANCIES (a) Appointment on compassionate grounds should be made only on regular basis and that too only if regular vacancies meant for that purpose are available. (b) Compassionate appointments can be made upto a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group 'C' post. Guideline 7 reads inter alia, as follows: "7. DETERMINATION/AVAILABILITY OF VACANCIES (a) Appointment on compassionate grounds should be made only on regular basis and that too only if regular vacancies meant for that purpose are available. (b) Compassionate appointments can be made upto a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group 'C' post. The appointing authority may hold back upto 5% of vacancies in the aforesaid categories to be filled by direct recruitment through Staff Selection Commission or otherwise so as to fill such vacancies by appointment on compassionate grounds. A person selected for appointment on compassionate grounds should be adjusted in the recruitment roster against the appropriate category viz SC/ST/OBC/General depending upon the category to which he belongs. For example, if he belongs to SC category he will be adjusted against the SC reservation point, if he is ST/OBC he will be adjusted against ST/OBC point and if he belongs to General category he will be adjusted against the vacancy point meant for General category. (c) While the ceiling of 5% for making compassionate appointment against regular vacancies should not be circumvented by making appointment of dependent family member of Government servant on casual/daily wage/ad-hoc/contract basis against regular vacancies, there is no bar to considering him for such appointment if he is eligible as per the normal rules/orders governing such appointments. (d) The ceiling of 5% of direct recruitment vacancies for making compassionate appointment should not be exceeded by utilising any other vacancy e.g. sports quota vacancy. (e) The Committee constituted for considering a request for appointment on compassionate grounds should limit its recommendation to appointment on compassionate grounds only in a really deserving case and only if vacancy meant for appointment on compassionate grounds will be available within a year in the concerned administrative Ministry/department/Office, that too within the ceiling of 5% of vacancies falling under DR quota in Group 'C' posts. (O.M. No. 14014/18/2000-Estt.(D) dated 22.06.2001) (f) Calculation of vacancies by grouping of posts for small offices/cadres - Grouping of posts in small Offices/Cadres for the purpose of calculation of vacancies for appointment on compassionate grounds is allowed. (O.M. No. 14014/18/2000-Estt.(D) dated 22.06.2001) (f) Calculation of vacancies by grouping of posts for small offices/cadres - Grouping of posts in small Offices/Cadres for the purpose of calculation of vacancies for appointment on compassionate grounds is allowed. Consequently, Group 'C' posts in which there are less than 20 direct recruitment vacancies in a recruitment year may be grouped together and out of the total number of vacancies 5% may be filled on compassionate grounds subject to the condition that appointment on compassionate grounds in any such post should not exceed one. For the purpose of calculation of vacancies for compassionate appointment, fraction of a vacancy either half or exceeding half but less than one may be taken as one vacancy. (Para 2 and 3 of O.M. No. 14014/24/1999-Estt.(D) dated 28.12.1999. ************** ****************** 13. PROCEDURE (a) The proforma as in Annexure may be used by Ministries/Departments/Offices for ascertaining necessary information and processing the cases of compassionate appointment. (b) The Welfare Officer in each Ministry/Department/Office should meet the members of the family of the Government servant in question immediately after his death to advise and assist them in getting appointment on compassionate grounds. The applicant should be called in person at the very first stage and advised in person about the requirements and formalities to be completed by him. (c) An application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be considered in the light of the instructions issued from time to time by the Department of Personnel and Training (Establishment Division) on the subject by a committee of officers consisting of three officers - one Chairman and two Members - of the rank of Deputy Secretary/Director in the Ministry/Department and officers of equivalent rank in the case of attached and subordinate offices. The Welfare Officer may also be made one of the Members/Chairman of the committee depending upon his rank. The committee may meet during the second week of every month to consider cases received during the previous month. The applicant may also be granted personal hearing by the committee, if necessary, for better appreciation of the facts of the case. (d) Recommendation of the committee should be placed before the competent authority for a decision. If the competent authority disagrees with the committee's recommendation, the case may be referred to the next higher authority for a decision." 20. The applicant may also be granted personal hearing by the committee, if necessary, for better appreciation of the facts of the case. (d) Recommendation of the committee should be placed before the competent authority for a decision. If the competent authority disagrees with the committee's recommendation, the case may be referred to the next higher authority for a decision." 20. This court is of the opinion that till such time the State of Rajasthan frames its appropriate guidelines, indicating the procedure and quantitative limits for compassionate appointments, it should follow the above guidelines, especially Guideline Nos. 7 and 11 (extracted above). Accordingly, a direction to this effect is hereby issued to the State of Rajasthan, to follow the said guidelines, till such time that the Government of Rajasthan frames its own guidelines in that regard. 21. For the above reasons, the appeal has to succeed; the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The above directions shall be embodied in the form of a circular, for guidance of all departments within the State of Rajasthan for due implementation; such circular shall be issued within eight weeks from today. The appeal is allowed. All pending applications are disposed of.