ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner Chagan Lal Nenama seeking directions to the authorities for compassionate appointment of petitioner being the dependent of deceased Government servant -Mokshi Nenama. 2. Bereft of elaborate details, the brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant writ petition are that the father of the petitioner was Class-IV employee in the office of respondent No.4 and had worked as a cook. The father of the petitioner Late Mokshi died on 01.05.2016, leaving behind his wife, one son (the petitioner) and three unmarried daughters. It is pleaded that the petitioner is an unemployed person and was unable to maintain his family after the death of his father and owing to the dire financial condition, they are now starving since all the five were depending upon the only bread earner, the deceased employee. It is stated that the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment in place of his father so as to meet the immediate hardship caused due to death of his father. The application form was supported by an affidavit of mother and sisters of the petitioner. The said application was duly approved by the authorities, the immediate office of the respondent No. 4, who found the petitioner entitled for the compassionate appointment. However, the same has been denied on the ground that the petitioner has four children after 01.06.2002. It is submitted that despite there being clear provision in the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 and there being no impediment for appointment, the authorities have wrongly rejected the case of the petitioner and thus a prayer has been made to quash the order dated 08.12.2016 (Annexure-3) and for issuance of the directions for granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 3. The respondents have filed preliminary objections while reserving the right to submit the detailed reply averring therein that the order dated 08.12.2016 has been passed strictly in accordance with law while acting upon the Government circular dated 08.04.2003 which is applicable upon all aspirants who seek a Government job and creates a bar on appointment of any person having more than two children after 01.06.2002. It is specifically contended that the petitioner who has fathered four children, all born after 01.06.2002 which is manifesting from the affidavit furnished by the petitioner in support of his application moved for the purpose of getting compassionate appointment, was not eligible for appointment in light of the above circular which is having statutory force. 4. It is also pleaded that the form for making application for compassionate appointment specifically mentions that in case a married person applies for compassionate appointment then in that situation the application shall not be entertained if the applicant has more than two children on or after 01.06.2002. The aforesaid conditions are mentioned at the Point No.8 of the application form prescribed for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. 6. A bare perusal of the statutory Notification dated 08.04.2003 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, makes it abundantly clear that no candidate who has more than two children on or after 01.06.2002 shall be eligible for appointment to the Government service. It is provided that where a candidate has only one child from earlier delivery but more than one child are born out of a single subsequent delivery then the children so born shall be deemed to be one entity while counting the total number of children. However, this is not the situation in the case at hand. It is revealed from the affidavit submitted by the petitioner himself before the respondent authorities in support of the application for compassionate appointment that he was having four children. The details are as under ; ^^Ø-la- larku dk uke laca/k tUefrfFk 1- Jh yksds'k fuukek iq= 12 o"kZ 10-10-2004 2- lqJh yfyrk fuukek iq=h 11 o"kZ 12-11-2005 3- lqJh olqU/kjk fuukek iq=h 07 o"kZ 10-10+-2009 4- lqJh jfouk fuukek iq=h 05 o"kZ 13-05-2011** 7. Thus, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was having four children at the time of making the application for compassionate appointment which made him ineligible to seek appointment in light of the Notification dated 08.04.2003. 8. There is a form prescribed for making an application for compassionate appointment by the dependent. The petitioner too filled and moved the said proforma which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-2. It is a document submitted by the petitioner himself wherein conditions and requisites are mentioned. 8. There is a form prescribed for making an application for compassionate appointment by the dependent. The petitioner too filled and moved the said proforma which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-2. It is a document submitted by the petitioner himself wherein conditions and requisites are mentioned. The point No.8 of the form attached with the writ petition filed by the petitioner reads as under; ^^8- fookfgr vkosnd ds vxj twu 2002 ls iwoZ 2 ls vf/kd larkusa gS] rks vkosnu i= Lohdkj fd;k tkosxk] twu 2002 ds i'pkr 2 ls vf/kd larku gksus ij vkosnu i= Lohdkj ugha fd;k tkosA** 9. Thus, in view of the above, the petitioner was not eligible for moving application for compassionate appointment since there is a clear fetter on appointment of a person having a third child after 01.06.2002. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by this Court on 03.05.2018 in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1505/2014 titled as The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Gyan Chand along with connected matters, wherein in identical circumstances, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the prayer seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The relevant paras Nos. 7 to 17 are deemed appropriate to be reproduced here, as under:- “7. Relevant would it be to highlight that as per the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2005, Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 and Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1967 were amended. The amendment would be to the effect that what has been provided in Rule 2 of the Amendment Rules of 2005 would be treated as Sub-rule (3) or (4) or Sub-rule(4) or (5) in the existing Rule of the various Service Rules listed in the Schedule of the Amendment Rules of 2005. 8. The effect of the Amendment Rules of 2005 would be that in the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 as also the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1967 it would have to be read that a candidate having more than two children born on or after 1.6.2002 would be ineligible to be given service as per the Rules either in the Forest Department or the Irrigation Department. The last proviso to the Amendment Rules of 2005 excludes only a widow. 9. The last proviso to the Amendment Rules of 2005 excludes only a widow. 9. The learned Single Judge has granted relief on the strength of Rule 11 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules of 1996 which Rule we have quoted in paragraph 2 above. 10. The Rule in question has an over-riding effect if anything in the said Rules is contrary to what is contained in said other rules, regulations or orders in force at the commencement of the said Rules. 11. There is no rule in the Compassionate Appointment Rules of1996 stipulating eligibility and thus the question of any other Rule stipulating eligibility being contrary to the Compassionate Appointment Rules of 1996 does not arise. 12. The legal position therefore would be that on account of the Amendment Rules of 2005, such Service Rules which have been amended and amendment being to debar a person who has more than two children born on or after 1.6.2002 to be appointed, be it on compassionate basis or otherwise would be ineligible for appointment. 13. The philosophy behind the amendment needs to be understood. Compassionate appointment has to be granted where on account of the death of a Government servant while in service the family comes under a financial stress because the family members are dependent upon the Government servant. The intention was not to give employment to an unemployed family member. 14. The three cases are illustrative of the fact that the three claimants, being the son of the deceased Government employee, were married and father of three children when their father died. Two deceased Government employees were Beldar, the lowest paid employees. Being married and having three children the three claimants would be earning livelihood to support their wife and children. What dependence the three would have on their father? Two were Beldar, the lowest paid employee. 15. Be that as it may, the philosophy under the concept of compassionate appointment being ignored, the decision has to be as per Rules. 16. For the reasons recorded hereinabove the Rules prohibit grant of appointment even on compassionate basis when the claimants are the son of the deceased Government servant and are married having three children. 17. The appeals are allowed. Impugned orders dated 3rd February, 2014, 25th March, 2014 and 3rd November, 2014 are set aside. The writ petitions filed by the respondents are dismissed.” 11. 17. The appeals are allowed. Impugned orders dated 3rd February, 2014, 25th March, 2014 and 3rd November, 2014 are set aside. The writ petitions filed by the respondents are dismissed.” 11. Now looking to the another aspect of the case regarding the object behind making policy of giving compassionate appointment. It is trite law that the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis owing to the demise of the bread earning family member i.e. deceased government employee. Thus, the objective of the rules is to relieve the family from the financial distress and help it to get over the emergency by providing compassionate appointment to one family member claim of appointment on compassionate ground is not as a matter of right and would be subject to strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family, therefore, no one can claim to have an inherent right to compassionate appointment. The policy is designed to meet the immediate needs of those families where the death of a government servant who has left them in indigent circumstances, requiring emergent means of subsistence. In matters of compassionate appointment, it must be ensured that it is basically to provide substitute to the family which is faced with financial crisis and penury on account of death of the sole bread-earner. 12. Here, in the case at hand, the deceased was a IV Class employee in the office of Department of Social Justice & Empowerment and was working as a cook. He passed away on 01.05.2016. As per the family particulars furnished by the petitioner along with his application seeking compassionate appointment, the petitioner is the eldest son of the deceased employee. He was born in the year 1985 and got married in the year 2003 and is having four children, particulars whereof have been mentioned in the preceding para of the judgment. The youngest daughter of the petitioner was born in the year 2011. In these circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner was wholly dependent upon the deceased employee, who passed away in the year 2016. The youngest daughter of the petitioner was born in the year 2011. In these circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner was wholly dependent upon the deceased employee, who passed away in the year 2016. By now, almost seven years have elapsed since the death of the government employee and thus, it cannot be assumed that petitioner is not able to maintain his mother, wife and four children. Thus, looking to this angle also, the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of compassionate appointment. The deceased employee was working on group ‘D’ post, the lowest paid in the hierarchy. The petitioner is a married person having wife and four children. In absence of material to the contrary, it cannot be assumed that all these six persons were wholly dependent upon the deceased government servant. 13. After anxious consideration for the reasons recorded herein above and as the rules governing the subject prohibit grant of appointment on compassionate basis to the petitioner, we are of the firm view that present one is not a fit case for interference in the order impugned and the writ petition deserves dismissal. 14. Accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.