ORDER : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 24.12.2019, whereby the claim of the petitioner/appellant herein for benefit of appointment against the higher post in terms of Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994, promulgated vide SRO-43 dated 2nd of February, 1994 has been rejected. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under: 2. Petitioner’s father, who was working as Senior Assistant in the Animal & Sheep Husbandry Department, died in harness in the year 2013. The petitioner being eligible applied for compassionate appointment in terms of SRO-43. The application submitted by the petitioner, keeping in view his own qualification was for appointment as a Veterinary Pharmacist, which was not agreed to by the official respondents in view of the fact that the rules did not permit the appointment as such. He was, therefore, asked to apply for the post of Junior Assistant vide communication dated 23.02.2015. The petitioner then applied afresh and was asked to appear in a type-test. As per the standards fixed by the official respondents, the minimum speed required was 35 words per minute as against the speed of 20 words per minute, which was achieved by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner, however, as a measure of indulgence, was offered another opportunity to clear the type-test which was conducted on 04.06.2015, which the petitioner/appellant herein says that he was unable to take on account of his hospitalization. 4. in view of the fact that he was placing reliance upon Rule 3 of SRO-43, which for purposes of reference is reproduced hereunder:- “3- Appointment under these rules-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule or order for the time being in force regulating the procedure for recruitment in any service or post under the Government, an eligible family member of a person specified in rule 2 may be appointed against a vacancy in the lowest rank of non-gazetted service or Class-IV post having qualification as prescribed under the relevant Recruitment Rules. Provided that the applicant is eligible and qualified for such post or acquires such eligibility and qualification within a period of one year from the date of death of the deceased person specified in rule 2: Provided further that no application for compassionate appointment under these rules shall be entertained after the expiry of one year from the date of death of the deceased person.” 5. Thereafter, not being satisfied with his appointment, the petitioner yet again filed representation dated 04.08.2015, seeking another opportunity for sitting in the type-test. Having failed to elicit any response on the said representation, the petitioner filed writ petition bearing SWP No. 921/2018, which was disposed of vide judgement and order dated 29.05.2018 with a direction to the official respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and to take a final decision on the representation made by him. 6. A detailed order of consideration dated 12.09.2019 came to be passed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Animal/Sheep Husbandry Department, in which the basis for rejection was the failure of the petitioner to qualify the type-test and further that the petitioner had accepted the Class-IV post, therefore, could not claim higher post as a matter of right. This order of consideration was, therefore, challenged by the petitioner before the writ Court in WP(C) No. 4370/2019, which too came to be dismissed vide judgement and order impugned in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the view expressed by the writ Court in dismissing the petition and upholding the order of rejection was contrary to the spirit of SRO-43 and the various judgments on the point. It was urged that the petitioner did have a right to get appointed against the post of Junior Assistant in view of his qualification and the spirit of Rule 3 of SRO-43, inasmuch as, he possesses qualification higher than matriculation. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. It is no longer res-integra that appointment on compassionate basis is not to be treated as an alternate source of recruitment, rather made only with a view to prevent vagrancy, destitution and mitigate the economic and mental stress caused on account of the untimely death of an earning hand in the family. Various judgments on the issue reiterate this principle time and again. 10. Various judgments on the issue reiterate this principle time and again. 10. Equally clear is the proposition of law that if a candidate has been given the benefit of appointment in terms of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, then he cannot subsequently turn around and claim that he ought to have been considered against the higher post. Learned Single Judge in the judgment and order impugned has reiterated that position of law in paragraph 8 of the judgment, wherein it has been held that the petitioner having already been offered an appointment and having joined against the post (Attendant’s post) cannot turn around to claim that he should be given appointment against the higher post, because he was a post-graduate. 11. This is the position of law, as has been clearly enunciated in “State of Haryana Vs Naresh Kumar Bali,” reported in (1994)4 SCC 448 and “State of Rajasthan Vs Umrao Singh,” reported in (1994)6 SCC 560 to the effect that once the candidate accepts an appointment on lower post, his right to be considered on compassionate ground is exhausted and no question of further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, urged that the aforementioned judgments did not at all apply to the facts and circumstances of the case, because in the present case the petitioner had never really given up his claim for appointment against the higher post of Junior Assistant and that even his joining report had clearly stated that it was without prejudice to his right to claim appointment against the higher post and therefore, the view expressed by the learned Single Judge applying the ratio of the judgments in Naresh Kumar Bali and Umrao Singh (supra) is inapt. 13. Assuming what is urged by learned counsel for the appellant is accepted to the limited extent that the acceptance of appointment against the post of attendant, with reference to the noting made by the appellant at the time of submitting his joining report was without prejudice to his rights and that he had actually not given up his right to seek consideration for appointment against the higher post, yet, what is important to note here is the fact that the petitioner was infact considered for appointment against the post of Junior Assistant as he was asked to sit in the type-test. The requirement to qualify the type-test was a pre-requisite, because the post of Junior Assistant requires the ability to possess a minimum type speed, which the petitioner failed to exhibit. 14. Another opportunity was indeed granted to the petitioner along with similarly situate other candidates, who had opted for appointment on compassionate basis, which the petitioner/appellant herein failed to avail on account of the purported indisposition and hospitalization. Strictly speaking, therefore, the right of the petitioner for consideration stood satisfied and therefore, the argument that the appellant was never accorded consideration for appointment against the higher post is not tenable in law. 15. The emphasis of the argument today, as advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant ought to be provided a third opportunity to take the type-test with a view to seek appointment against the higher post of Junior Assistant. The issue is whether any such direction ought to be issued in law for providing a third opportunity when two opportunities already stood offered in the past. Needless to say that it was only after having offered two opportunities to clear the type-test that the petitioner was appointed against a Class-IV post. 16. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the observations of the Apex Court in Umrao Singh’s case (supra), wherein Court refused further consideration on compassionate grounds lest it gave rise to “endless compassion.” What was observed by their Lordships is as under: “8. Admittedly the respondent’s father died in harness while working as Sub-Inspector, C.I.D. (Special Branch) on 16.3.1988. The respondent filed an application on 8.4.1988 for his appointment on compassionate ground as Sub-Inspector or L.D.C. according to the availability of vacancy. On a consideration of his plea, he was appointed to the post of L.D.C. by order dated 14.12.1989. He accepted the appointment as L.D.C. Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of ‘endless compassion’. Eligibility to be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police is one thing, the process of selection is yet another thing. Merely because of the so-called eligibility, the learned Single Judge of the High court was persuaded to the view that direction be issued under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules which has no application to the facts of this case.” 17. Eligibility to be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police is one thing, the process of selection is yet another thing. Merely because of the so-called eligibility, the learned Single Judge of the High court was persuaded to the view that direction be issued under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules which has no application to the facts of this case.” 17. Not only this, a considerable time has since passed from the date of death of father of the petitioner and the appointment of the petitioner/appellant herein in the year 2015. The consideration having been accorded and the appointment made, the purpose of compassionate appointment which is to prevent a family from vagrancy and destitution having been achieved, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgement and order impugned rendered by the learned Single Judge. 18. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected applications.