JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. 1. The applicant in O.A. (EKM) No. 468 of 2019 has filed this original petition aggrieved by the order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, Addl. Bench Ernakulam dated 28.11.2019 in O.A. (EKM) No. 468 of 2019. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Petitioner’s father Late Thomas K.X. while working as Joint Regional Transport Officer, North Paravoor died on 25.06.2011. At the time of his death, the petitioner was studying for B.D.S. (4 year Course) at Annoor Dental College Hospital, Muvatupuzha. The other legal heirs of Late Thomas K.X. mentioned in Annexure-A2 legal heirship certificate have given their no objection in appointing the petitioner under the compassionate appointment scheme. In June 2014 petitioner submitted an application seeking an extension of time to apply for enrollment under the compassionate appointment scheme and the same was rejected by Annexure-A5 order holding that the scheme does not have any provision for granting an extension of time for submitting an application. Thereafter in September 2016, an application was submitted through proper channel claiming compassionate appointment under Annexure-A3 scheme. By Annexure-A6, the 3rd respondent forwarded the same to the second respondent. On intimation as per Annexure-A7 that the application is defective, the petitioner resubmitted the same after curing the defect. Thereafter by Annexure-A8 order, the 1st respondent rejected the application for the reason that there is a delay of more than 3 years in submitting the application as the same was submitted only on 18.04.2017. The petitioner could not complete her studies due to paucity of funds and being in dire need of employment for sustenance again represented before the 1st respondent as per Annexure-A9 requesting to reconsider the matter. As per Annexure-A10 reply given on the floor of the Legislative Assembly on 14.03.2018, the petitioner came to know that the application will not be considered favourably since the application for appointment under the scheme was made three years after the period stipulated. Petitioner avers that the Government itself as per Annexure-A11 order has condoned the delay in making the application in the case of another employee. Petitioner avers that the Government itself as per Annexure-A11 order has condoned the delay in making the application in the case of another employee. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1303 of 2018 which was disposed of as per Annexure-A12 order directing the petitioner to file a representation before the 1st respondent with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to take a decision on the same within a period of two months. In furtherance of Annexure-A12 order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner submitted Annexure-A13 representation before the Government and after hearing the petitioner, the Government issued Annexure-A14 order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for employment under the compassionate employment scheme. It is challenging Annexure-A14 order that the petitioner approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal filing O.A. (EKM) No. 468 of 2019. 3. A detailed reply statement was filed by the 2nd respondent mainly contending that the request of the petitioner for an extension of time for submitting an application for employment under the scheme till she completed the BDS course was rejected as there is no provision for granting such extension as per the scheme. Likewise, the application seeking compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioner was also considered by the Government and rejected for the reason of delay of more than three years in submitting the application. 4. The Tribunal on a consideration of the rival contentions dismissed the original application as per order dated 28.11.2019 holding that the petitioner has not submitted the application within a time limit of two years prescribed as per Clause 19 of G.O. (P) No. 12/99/P&ARD dated 24.05.1999 and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It is aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal dated 28.11.2019 that the petitioner has preferred the present original petition. 5. We have heard Shri P.C. Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Shri B. Unnikrishna Kaimal, Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. The 1st respondent Government rejected the claim of the petitioner as per Annexure-A14 order for the reason that there is a delay of more than three years in submitting the application and therefore going by Clause 19 of Annexure-A3 scheme, the claim of the petitioner is inadmissible. Clause 19 of Annexure-A3 scheme reads as follows: “19. 6. The 1st respondent Government rejected the claim of the petitioner as per Annexure-A14 order for the reason that there is a delay of more than three years in submitting the application and therefore going by Clause 19 of Annexure-A3 scheme, the claim of the petitioner is inadmissible. Clause 19 of Annexure-A3 scheme reads as follows: “19. The time limit for preferring applications under the scheme will be 2 years from the date of death of Government Servants. In the case of minor, the period will be within 3 years after attaining majority.” (Underline supplied) It is settled law that no applicant has any vested right to claim an appointment under compassionate ground and the same can be claimed only if the rules provide for the same. A specific time limit of two years from the date of death of the Government Servant is fixed as per the scheme. Admittedly the petitioner did not make an application within the said period of two years fixed as per Annexure-A3 scheme. 7. Compassionate appointment, as explained by the Apex Court in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 209 , is provided 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. The concept of compassionate appointment has been recognized as an exception to the general rule and therefore the scheme or the policy 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. 8. In Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Madhusudan Das and Others, (2008) 15 SCC 560 , the Supreme Court while considering an issue regarding the compassionate appointment, held that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that it must be provided for in the Rules. 9. The Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , while considering the question as to whether after a lapse of time an application under compassionate appointment scheme could be entertained, held as follows: “6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole bread-winner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” (Underline supplied) 10. The Apex Court in State Bank of India and Another vs. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 , emphasized the need for strict compliance with terms of scheme for compassionate appointment and held as under: “It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme.” (Underline supplied) 11. In Shreejith L. vs. Deputy Director (Education), Kerala and Others, (2012) 7 SCC 248 , the Apex Court held that an application for compassionate appointment should be strictly made within the time limit stipulated in the scheme and holding so the Apex Court rejected the claim of the applicant as the application was made beyond the period stipulated in the scheme for making such a claim. 12. In Sivamurthy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 13 SCC 730 , the Apex Court while considering the entitlement for appointment under compassionate appointment scheme held that compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule of appointment, it can only be claimed strictly in accordance with the terms of the scheme and not by seeking relaxation of the terms of the scheme. 13. 13. The Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Another vs. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 and The Director of Treasuries in Karnataka vs. V. Somyashree, (2021) SCC Online SC 704, has reiterated that in cases of appointment on compassionate grounds there should be strict implementation of the terms of the scheme and appointment can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the state policy. 14. From the above discussion it is clear that the appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent of a deceased employee, being an exception to the general rule, the same could be made only in strict compliance with the provisions of the scheme. Admittedly the application submitted by the petitioner was well beyond the time specified in Clause 19 of Annexure-A3 scheme and therefore petitioner cannot be considered for appointment under the scheme. 15. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that she has been subjected to discrimination in not extending similar treatment given to another employee as per Annexure-A11 order in the matter of condonation of delay and alleges violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A reading of Annexure-A11 reveals that delay has been condoned in that case as a special case for giving appointment to the dependant son of a sanitation worker in Thrissur Corporation accepting the claim of the applicant therein that due to his ignorance application could not be submitted within time. But the petitioner, a BDS student, was aware of the time limit fixed by Annexure- A3 scheme and has even filed an application seeking extension of time for applying for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme, and the same was rejected and communicated to the petitioner as per Annexure-A5 dated 19.09.2014. Even going by the pleadings in the original application, the application for compassionate appointment was only made during September 2016 even though the application seeking extension of time for applying under the scheme was rejected by the Government as early as on 19.09.2014. A perusal of Annexure-A6 covering letter of 3rd respondent by which the petitioner’s application was forwarded to the 2nd respondent shows that the application has been submitted only after completing the BDS course and that she waited till the completion of the course for making an application under the compassionate appointment scheme. The circumstances enumerated in Annexure-A11 are not similar to the case of the petitioner. The circumstances enumerated in Annexure-A11 are not similar to the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the Government did not rely on Annexure-A11 holding that it will create an unwanted precedent. The Tribunal also considered the said aspect and entered a finding that such order issued in exceptional cases cannot be a ground for seeking similar benefit. 16. Even otherwise the petitioner cannot rely on Annexure-A11 order in support of her claim. The concept of compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule, the scheme has to be strictly followed. As per Clause 19 of Annexure-A3 scheme, a time limit of 2 years from the death of the government servant has been fixed for making an application. The Apex Court in the decisions referred above has in clear terms held that compassionate appointment could be made only within the time limit stipulated in the scheme and no relaxation could be claimed by an applicant. Therefore the petitioner cannot make any claim for a similar treatment based on Annexure-A11 order which was issued overlooking the legal principles settled by various decisions of the Apex Court that appointment under compassionate appointment scheme could be claimed only in accordance with the terms of the scheme and not by seeking relaxation of the terms of the scheme. Further the issue regarding grant of exemption to individual employees invoking Rule 39 of Part II, KS&SSR came up for consideration before this Court in Dinesh Shankar N.T. vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2016 (4) KHC 627 and this Court relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Uppal and Others vs. State of J&K and Others, (1998) 4 SCC 179 , held that the power of exemption cannot be exercised capriciously or arbitrarily to give an undue advantage or favour to an individual employee and that such powers cannot be invoked as a matter of course. In the light of the above, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Annexure A11 order passed by the Government since it has been issued contrary to the legal principles discussed above. 17. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the equality principle has been violated in not extending to her the benefits given in favour of another employee as per Annexure-A11 Government Order, as Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage a concept of negative equality. 17. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the equality principle has been violated in not extending to her the benefits given in favour of another employee as per Annexure-A11 Government Order, as Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage a concept of negative equality. In Union of India and Another vs. International Trading Co. and Another, (2003) 5 SCC 437 , the Apex Court held as follows: “A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (in short ‘the Constitution’) cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality.” (Underline supplied) 18. The Apex Court in State of U.P. and Others v. Rajkumar Sharma and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 330 , while examining the claim of the applicant for appointment on the ground of benefits granted to similarly situated candidates held that even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly, that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. 19. In State of Odisha vs. Anup Kumar Senapati, (2019) 19 SCC 626 , the Apex Court while considering the concept of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India held as follows: 39. It was lastly submitted that concerning other persons, the orders have been passed by the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court and grants-in-aid have been released under the 1994 Order as such on the ground of parity this Court should not interfere. No doubt, there had been a divergence of opinion on the aforesaid issue. It was lastly submitted that concerning other persons, the orders have been passed by the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court and grants-in-aid have been released under the 1994 Order as such on the ground of parity this Court should not interfere. No doubt, there had been a divergence of opinion on the aforesaid issue. Be that as it may. In our opinion, there is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. In case the person has a right, he has to be treated equally, but where right is not available a person cannot claim rights to be treated equally as the right does not exist, negative equality when the right does not exist, cannot be claimed. (Underline supplied) 20. Therefore the claim of the petitioner to consider her for compassionate appointment on the basis of Annexure-A11 order cannot be accepted. 21. In the light of the discussion as above, we hold that the petitioner is not entitled to a compassionate appointment as per Annexure A3 Scheme. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal dated 28.11.2019 in O.A. (EKM) No. 468 of 2019, and consequently, the above Original Petition is dismissed.