ORDER : HON’BLE DHADDHA, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Verender Singh Meena challenging validity of Rule 6(1), 6(2) and 10(6) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short “the Rules”). 2. The facts relevant to the present case are that; father of the petitioner, Shri Banshi Lal Meena was working in the office of Dy. Conservator of Forest, Jahajpur, Bhilwara on the post of Forester in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800 (Grade Pay 3600). At that time, his basic salary was Rs.16,280/-. Shri Banshi Lal Meena, all of sudden, died in harness on 01.11.2014 at Deoli. He was sole bread earner of the family. The entire family was dependent upon him. The petitioner, Verender Singh Meena qualified Senior Secondary Examination in the year 2002. After the death of his father, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment to the post of Forester in accordance with the Rules where the minimum academic qualification for direct recruitment on the above post is senior secondary. Posts of Foresters were lying vacant with the department but the petitioner was denied the appointment under the powers so vested upon the appointing authority under the Rules. Although, the petitioner was given appointment on the post of Forest Guard carrying the Pay Scale No.4, but he was having qualification for appointment on the post of Forester carrying the Pay Scale No.9. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is totally illegal, arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the scheme of the Rules. He submits that there is no criteria laid down in the rules 6(1) as to on which post the appointment is to be given to the dependent of the deceased Government employee. He submits that the post of Forester is also a post of direct recruitment and promotion both and is governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Service Rules, 1963. He submits that as per Schedule appended with the Rules of 1963, the qualification for the post of Forester is Higher Secondary Examination or its equivalent examination and the petitioner is having the qualification for the post. Moreover, the petitioner is a graduate. 4. Learned counsel further submits that though the petitioner was given appointment on the post of Forest Guard, but his case was never considered by the respondents for appointment on the post of Forester. Moreover, the petitioner is a graduate. 4. Learned counsel further submits that though the petitioner was given appointment on the post of Forest Guard, but his case was never considered by the respondents for appointment on the post of Forester. He submits that the posts of Forester were lying vacant at the relevant time. 5. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of sections 6(1), 6(2) and 10(6) of the Rules, are violative of the Constitution of India and the above provisions deserve to be struck down and direction be given to the respondents for appoint the petitioner on the post of Forester modifying the order of his appointment to the post of Forest Guard dated 1.10.2015 with all consequential benefits of the post of Forester with effect from the date of his appointment. 6. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and material available on record. 7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on account of sad demise of his father Shri Banshi Lal Meena. Apex Court and other various High Courts have held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided in the Rules. The criteria laid down therefore, viz., that the death of the sole bread earner of family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum speedy relief to the family of the deceased. When such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment on the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right. 8. The petitioner had filed this writ petition to challenge the Rules for compassionate appointment with ulterior motive after getting the compassionate appointment on the post of Forest Guard. If the petitioner really wanted to challenge the validity of the said Rules, he would have not accepted or joined the compassionate appointment on the post of Forest Guard which was given to him. 9. Hobn’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. If the petitioner really wanted to challenge the validity of the said Rules, he would have not accepted or joined the compassionate appointment on the post of Forest Guard which was given to him. 9. Hobn’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. v/s Anju Jain, Civil Appeal No.5224 of 2008, decided on 25.8.2008, held as under : “29 We are of the view that both the Courts were wrong in granting relief to the writ petitioner. Appointment on compassionate ground is never considered a right of a person. In fact, such appointment is violative of rule of equality enshrined and guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. As per settled law, when any appointment is to be made in Government or semi-Government or in public office, cases of all eligible candidates must be considered alike. That is the mandate of Article 14. Normally, therefore, State or its instrumentality making any appointment to 17 public office, cannot ignore such mandate. At the same time, however, in certain circumstances, appointment on compassionate ground of dependents of deceased employee is considered inevitable so that the family of the deceased employee may not starve. The primary object of such scheme is to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis occurring due to death of sole bread earner. It is thus an exception to the general rule of equality and not another independent and parallel source of employment.” 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition filed by the petitioner has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition along with stay application is dismissed.