JUDGMENT 1. By way of this writ petition, while questioning the legality of order dated 21.9.10 & 4.4.18 issued by the respondent-Rajasthan High Court denying the appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground, the petitioner has also challenged the vires of Rule 2(c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules"). 2. The facts relevant are that petitioner's brother Shri Kantilal, who was employed as Junior Judicial Assistant in the Rajasthan High Court died while in service on 28.6.10, who was unmarried at the time of his death. The petitioner herein, unmarried sister of Shri Kantilal made an application to the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner claimed that her deceased brother was taking care of the entire family and therefore, being dependent on his deceased brother, she is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules. The application made stands rejected by the High Court on the ground that the petitioner is not covered within the definition of 'dependent' under the Rules. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondents have erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner in cursory manner without application of mind. The compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadwinner and therefore, the respondents were under an obligation to consider the application preferred by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground keeping in view the spirit of the scheme underlying the Rules. Learned counsel submitted that the definition of 'dependent' under Rule 2(c) of the Rules which does not include brother and sister of the deceased Government servant as dependent is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that though petitioner's yet another brother Shri Ramswaroop Pandit is working as LDC in the District Court at Sirohi but he is living separately since long and therefore, there is none in the family to take care of surviving dependents of deceased Kantilal. Learned counsel submitted that a direction deserves to be issued to the respondents to amend the Rules appropriately so as to include brother and sister in the definition of 'dependent' in case of an unmarried Government servant. Learned counsel submitted that a direction deserves to be issued to the respondents to amend the Rules appropriately so as to include brother and sister in the definition of 'dependent' in case of an unmarried Government servant. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in Swapanali Shekhar Kalbhor & Anr.vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (D.B.C.Writ Petition No.7797/14), decided on 11.10.17. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Shah, Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of 'dependent' under Rule 2(c) of the Rules and therefore, she is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned AAG submitted that the vires of Rule 2(c) of the Rules has already been upheld by a Bench of this Court in the matter of The State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Smt. Jamna Devi (D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.569/19), decided on 17.9.19 and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 6. Indubitably, compassionate appointment of dependents of Deceased Government Servant, who was employed in connection with the affairs of the State on permanent basis or holding a post temporarily after appointment on regular basis including period of probation as probationer trainee, is governed by the provisions of the Rules of 1996. Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 defines 'dependent' thus: "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. Obviously, no person other than those covered under definition of "dependent" is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground claiming himself to be dependent upon the deceased Government servant. The petitioner who is sister of the deceased Government servant and claims herself to be dependent upon him being not covered by the definition of "dependent" set out in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 is not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. 8. The petitioner who is sister of the deceased Government servant and claims herself to be dependent upon him being not covered by the definition of "dependent" set out in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 is not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. 8. Coming to the question of vires of Rule 2(c) of the Rules, it is noticed that in Smt. Jamna Devi's case (supra), a Bench of this Court while relying upon various decisions of the Supreme Court on the issue of entitlement of appointment on compassionate ground observed: "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 groundof 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." 9. 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." 9. As a matter of fact, the vires of Rule 2(c) has already been upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 11.3.19 rendered in the matter of Hari Ram Vishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 10. In Hari Ram Vishnoi's case (supra), the petitioner therein claiming appointment on compassionate ground as dependent of his deceased unmarried brother challenged the vires of Rule 2(c) on the similar grounds. A Bench of this Court while relying upon various decisions of the Supreme Court upheld the vires of Rule 2(c) with the observations as under: "5. Indubitably, compassionate appointment of dependents of Deceased Government Servant, who was employed in connection with the affairs of the State on permanent basis or holding a post temporarily after appointment on regular basis including period of probation as probationer trainee, is governed by the provisions of the Rules of 1996. Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 defines 'dependent' thus: "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;" 6. Obviously, no person other than those covered under definition of "dependent" is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground claiming himself to be dependent upon the deceased Government servant. The petitioner who is brother of the deceased Government servant and claims himself to be dependent upon him being not covered by the definition of "dependent" set out in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 is not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. 7. It goes without saying that the appointments on various posts in different cadres of the State are required to be filled in by way of regular recruitment in the manner prescribed under the relevant recruitment Rules, in consonance with Article 16 of the Constitution of India and the employment on compassionate ground is only an exception carved out to meet a particular contingency i.e. to extend an immediate succor to the family of the Government servant who died in harness. The consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is not a vested right and thus, nobody can claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of ' Umesh Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , while dealing with the issue relating to the right of the dependent of the deceased Government servant seeking employment on compassionate ground observed: "As a rule, appointment in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications 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 qualification 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." 9. In " LIC vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar, (1994) 2 SCC 718 ", the Supreme Court observed that disregardful of law, however hard case may be, appointment on compassionate grounds should not be ordered if the case does not fall within the scope of law. The Supreme Court further observed that there may be pitiable situation but on that score the statutory provision cannot be put aside. 10. In " National Institute of Technology and Ors. vs. Niraj Kumar Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 481 ", the Supreme Court observed that appointment on compassionate ground would be illegal in absence of any scheme providing therefor. Such scheme must be commensurate with the constitutional scheme of equality. The court held: "16. All public appointments must be in consonance with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. vs. Niraj Kumar Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 481 ", the Supreme Court observed that appointment on compassionate ground would be illegal in absence of any scheme providing therefor. Such scheme must be commensurate with the constitutional scheme of equality. The court held: "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 thereunder." (emphasis supplied) 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." (emphasis added) 11. Keeping in view the decision of this Court in Hari Ram Vishnoi's case (supra), upholding the validity of Rule 2(c) of the Rules, nothing survives for consideration of this Court in the present petition. 12. Keeping in view the decision of this Court in Hari Ram Vishnoi's case (supra), upholding the validity of Rule 2(c) of the Rules, nothing survives for consideration of this Court in the present petition. 12. In view of unequivocal provision of Rule 2 (c) of the Rules and the decisions of this Court in Hari Ram Vishnoi and Smt. Jamna Devi's cases(supra), the decision of the Bombay High Court in Swapanali Shekhar Kalbhor's case (supra) rendered keeping in view the scheme of compassionate appointment underlying the policy framed by the State of Maharashtra adopted by PimpriChinchwad Municipal Corporation, does not help the petitioner in any manner. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.