ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Smt. Seema being aggrieved of the order dated 11.02.2022 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench rejecting the original application filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent Postal Department for affording appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis to a suitable post in place of her father, an erstwhile employee of the Department. 2. The petitioner is the married daughter of Late Shri Rakha Ram Mali who was employed in the Postal Department as an Ex. Mail Overseer. He expired on 02.04.2012 while in service. The application seeking compassionate appointment filed by Shri Prakash Chand, Son of Shri Rakha Ram and brother of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide endorsement dated 27.06.2013. Another such application filed by Shri Prakash Chand was rejected on 25.09.2013. Shri Prakash Chand filed an Original Application No.113/2014 in the Central Administrative Tribunal for assailing these orders which was dismissed by order dated 21.11.2016 which has attained finality as the same was not challenged further. The petitioner herein, filed the application dated 01.01.2019 and representation dated 04.02.2019 before the employer of her late father, seeking compassionate appointment. However, the respondent Department did not decide the application and did not afford appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis, whereupon, she filed an original application in the Central Administrative Tribunal which was opposed by the respondents on numerous grounds viz. that the application filed by the petitioner amounted to a second prayer for compassionate appointment because, the earlier prayer made to this effect by her brother Prakash Chand had been rejected twice; that the petitioner was married and was living with her husband at the Village Chak Bhainsaka Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer and that she was neither a dependent of Rakha Ram nor the family of Rakha Ram was dependent on her. The learned tribunal considered the submissions advanced by counsel representing the parties and rejected the application seeking compassionate appointment preferred by the petitioner by the order dated 11.02.2022 which is assailed in this writ petition. 3. Dr. Nupur Bhati, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal while rejecting the prayer for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner in place of her late father is absolutely unjust, illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was unquestionably dependent on her father. 3. Dr. Nupur Bhati, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal while rejecting the prayer for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner in place of her late father is absolutely unjust, illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was unquestionably dependent on her father. Dismissal of the application preferred by the petitioner’s brother for compassionate appointment had been turned down, cannot be considered to be a precedent against the petitioner from seeking compassionate appointment because she has an independent legal right to make such a claim in the capacity of married daughter of the deceased government employee. She placed reliance on the following Supreme Court judgments:- 1. Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India reported in 2005 (10) SCC 289 & 2. Canara Bank and Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar reported in 2015 (7) SCC 412 & implored the Court to accept the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 11.02.2022 and direct the respondents to offer compassionate appointment to the petitioner on a suitable post in the respondent postal department in place of her late father Shri Rakha Ram. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by Dr. Bhati and have gone through the material available on record. 5. On a careful consideration of the material placed on record, it becomes clear that the first and foremost requirement as per the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment approved by the Central Government, is that it is applicable to dependent family members of a government servant who dies in service. 6. A “Dependent Family Member” is defined as spouse, son, daughter; brother or sister in the case of unmarried government servant etc. “who was wholly dependent” on the government servant/member of the Armed Forces at the time of his death in harness or retirement on medical grounds, as the case may be. 7. It is well settled that appointment to a public post is not a matter of right. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the regular mode of selection to a public post and is offered to the dependent family members of a government employee who dies in harness so as to avoid financial distress and penury, and to tide over the family in difficult times immediately after the death of the public servant. 8. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the regular mode of selection to a public post and is offered to the dependent family members of a government employee who dies in harness so as to avoid financial distress and penury, and to tide over the family in difficult times immediately after the death of the public servant. 8. It is an admitted position that the petitioner did not claim in her application and the affidavit filed in support thereof that she was, in any manner dependent on her father Shri Rakha Ram at the time of his death. Despite the fact that a married daughter has been included in the category of dependents in the guidelines for compassionate appointment, she definitely would have to satisfy the test of being dependent on her father i.e., deceased government servant. In absence of any averment to this effect and rather, there not being a whisper in the application filed by the petitioner regarding she, being dependent on her father, there was no reason whatsoever for the respondents to have favourably considered the application filed by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 9. In addition thereto, we are conscious of the fact that the application filed by the petitioner’s brother Shri Prakash Chand for appointment on compassionate basis in place of his father had been rejected by the Department way back in the year 2013 after examining all the parameters and the Original Application filed against such rejection also stands dismissed. Thus, the claim made by the legal heir for compassionate appointment in place of the government employee who passed away in harness has been foreclosed finally. 10. In the case of Govind Prakash Verma (supra), the controversy under consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not in regards to the claim made by the married daughter of the deceased government servant to be appointed on compassionate basis. In the said case, the application for appointment on compassionate basis was filed by the son of the deceased. Such application was rejected by the High Court on the ground that the widow of the deceased government employee was getting sufficient family pension and other benefits after death of the government employee and thus, the compassionate appointment could not be granted. The said judgment of High Court was reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the present case, no such issue is involved. 11. The said judgment of High Court was reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the present case, no such issue is involved. 11. In the case of Canara Bank (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that compassionate appointment creates an exception to requirements of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India in the matter of recruitment. The Scheme has been formulated to provide immediate succor to the bereaved family. Financial condition of the family is an important factor. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. However, the applications for compassionate appointment should not be kept pending for long. 12. The observations made in the Supreme Court judgment in Canara Bank case operate against the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. 13. The concept of compassionate appointment was considered in detail by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Prem Lata reported in 2021 AIR SC (4984) and it was held as below:- “8. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, the law laid down by this court on compassionate ground on the death of the deceased employee are required to be referred to and considered. In the recent decision this court in Civil Appeal No.5122 of 2021 in the case of the Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. vs. V. Somashree, had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground. After referring to the decision of this court in N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 , this Court has summarized the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under: (i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule; (ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment; (iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy; (v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. 9. 9. As per the law laid down by this court in catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right. 9.1 In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653 , this court had an occasion to consider the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground and considered decision of this court in case of Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289 , in para 21 and 26, it is observed and held as under: “21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 , has been considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930. The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract: (Umesh Kumar Nagpal case [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930], SCC pp. 139-40, para 2) “2. … As a rule, appointments 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 qualifications 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. 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. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule.” 14. On a perusal of the application filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment, it becomes clear that the petitioner has claimed compassionate appointment almost by way of inheritance. It was not stated in the application seeking compassionate appointment that the petitioner or for that matter any other family member of late Shri Rakha Ram suffered any financial distress post his death in harness. The petitioner did not claim that she was in any manner dependent upon Shri Rakha Ram so as to substantiate her claim for appointment on compassionate basis under the scheme. The petitioner did not claim that she was in any manner dependent upon Shri Rakha Ram so as to substantiate her claim for appointment on compassionate basis under the scheme. It may be reiterated that the application seeking compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner’s brother was rejected by the Department long back and the Original Application preferred by Shri Prakash Chand against such rejection has also been rejected by the Tribunal. Hence, rejection of the application seeking compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner’s brother Shri Prakash Chand acts as a precedent against all other claimants. 15. As a consequence of the above discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in rejecting the original application preferred by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to offer her compassionate appointment on a suitable post in place of her late father Shri Rakha Ram. The impugned order dated 11.02.2022 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference therein. The writ petition thus fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit. All pending applications are disposed of.