JUDGMENT : P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J. (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, praying to set aside the order passed in W.P. No. 11970 of 2017 dated 31.07.2017 and allow the Writ Petition bearing W.P. No. 11970 of 2017.) 1. The intra-Court Appeal arises out of the order dated 31.07.2017 in W.P. No. 11970 of 2017 passed by the Learned Judge of this Court. 2. The father of the Appellant, viz., Ekambaram, who was working as Village Assistant at Chunampet Village in Cheyyur Taluk of Kancheepuram District, died in harness on 19.12.2003 leaving behind his wife, one son, two daughters and mother. On the application dated 31.07.2006 made by the Appellant, he was appointed on compassionate ground as Office Assistant to the Revenue Inspector in the office of the Tahsildar, Cheyyur Taluk by order R.C. No. 40435/2007/A-4 dated 21.06.2012 issued by the District Collector, Kancheepuram. 3. According to the Appellant, though his qualification was pass in 12th standard at the time of making his application for compassionate appointment, he had subsequently acquired higher qualification and after joining in service as Office Assistant, he had also passed departmental examinations and he his eligible to appointment to higher posts of Junior Assistant and Record Clerk. The Tahsildar, Cheyyur Taluk by letter R.C. No. 2365/2016/A2 dated 27.06.2016 had recommended to the District Collector, Kancheepuram to appoint the Appellant in higher posts of Junior Assistant or Record Clerk commensurate with his educational qualifications, but the District Collector, Kancheepuram by proceedings R.C. No. 19144/2016-A4 dated 07.11.2016 referring to the recruitment rules, which prescribes required qualification for appointment as Record Clerk, has required the Tahsildar, Cheyyur Taluk to explain, on what basis the recommendation has been made by him to appoint the Appellant in the higher post. The Appellant has challenged the said proceedings R.C. No. 19144/2016-A4 dated 07.11.2016 passed by the District Collector, Kancheepurm in W.P. No. 11970 of 2017 and has sought for a consequential direction to the Second Respondent to modify the order appointing the Appellant on compassionate ground by offering him a post commensurate with his educational qualification. The Appellant has challenged the said proceedings R.C. No. 19144/2016-A4 dated 07.11.2016 passed by the District Collector, Kancheepurm in W.P. No. 11970 of 2017 and has sought for a consequential direction to the Second Respondent to modify the order appointing the Appellant on compassionate ground by offering him a post commensurate with his educational qualification. The Learned Judge, who heard the Writ Petition, by order dated 31.07.2017 after highlighting the object of granting compassionate appointment is to tide over the sudden crisis of the family of the deceased and the constitutional scheme requiring equality of opportunity to public employment to all citizens, rejected the claim of the Appellant and dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. M. Anandaraj, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, Mrs. A. Sri Jayanthi, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relying on the recommendation dated 27.06.2016 made by the Tahsildar, Cheyyur Taluk to the District Collector, Kancheepuram as well as certain earlier orders granting benefit of appointment in posts commensurate with their educational qualification in higher posts in respect of similarly placed persons, strenuously urged that the District Collector, Kancheepuram may be directed to consider the request of the Appellant and extend the same benefit to him. 6. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Umesh Kumar Nagpal -vs- State of Haryana [ (1994) 4 SCC 138 ], wherein it has been held as follows:- “2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of application and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. 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 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 dependant 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. The favourable treatment given to such dependant 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 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.” Again, in State Bank of India -vs- Somvir Singh [ (2007)4 SCC 778 ], it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as follows:- “Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 16(2) protect citizens against discrimination in respect of any employment or office under the State on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex and descent. It is so well settled and needs no restatement at our end that 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 died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer.” On a conspectus of the dictum laid down in the binding decisions extracted supra, it would necessarily follow that the Appellant, who had already been appointed as Officer Assistant on compassionate grounds cannot make another claim to be posted as Junior Assistant or Record Clerk. We are in agreement with the reasons assigned by the Learned Judge in the order under appeal explaining that the claim made by the Appellant, which runs contrary to the object of appointment on compassionate grounds, cannot be granted and we confirm the same. 7. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be meant to perpetuate illegality as it does not envisage negative equality. 7. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be meant to perpetuate illegality as it does not envisage negative equality. Thus, if some benefit has been granted inadvertently by mistake to a person, such order does not confer any legal right on similarly placed persons to be extended the same benefit. Restating the applicability of that legal principle to appointments made on compassionate grounds, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union Bank of India -vs- M.T. Latheesh [ (2006) 7 SCC 350 ] has cautioned that indiscriminate grant of appointments on compassionate grounds would shut the door for employment to the ever-growing population of unemployed youth. 8. There is nothing which prevents the Appellant from competing for appointment to any post in the normal mode of recruitment as applicable to all other similarly placed citizens of the country, based on his eligibility and educational qualifications, whenever vacancies to be filled-up are notified. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.