JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, petitioner has prayed to quash part of Memo No. 22 mu. estb. dated 04.10.2013, whereby the application for grant of compassionate appointment has been dismissed. Further the petitioner has prayed for grant of compassionate appointment in lieu of death of her father, Yamuna Ram. 3. Yamuna Ram was a Revenue Karamchari in Khasmahal Office of Palamau District. He died in harness on 02.07.2012. He died leaving behind his widow, namely, Kanti Devi and this petitioner, who is the daughter. Admittedly, this petitioner is married to one Navin Kumar Kashyap. This petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is not the dependent as she is married daughter and there is a difference in address and she does not come within the purview of dependent as per the resolution of the Government, which governs grant of compassionate appointment. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the petitioner is the daughter, though married, was dependent on the father, who was the deceased employee, thus, she cannot be deprived of getting compassionate appointment when the mother has nominated her to get appointment. 5. After hearing the parties, I find that admittedly the petitioner is a married daughter. Impugned order suggests that the married daughter cannot be said to be dependent in terms of the resolution of the Government. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a rule, but is an exception. A candidate has got no right to be appointed on compassionate ground as the same is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (Since after marriage Smt. Madhuri Santosh Koli), Civil Appeal No. 6938 of 2022 at paragraph 6 thereof has held as under: “6. 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 Articles 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. 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.” 6. The approach of compassionate appointment has also been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 6.1 of the aforesaid judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6938 of 2022 after taking note of the earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is necessary to quote paragraph 6.1, which reads as under: 6.1 In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 , this Court had an occasion to consider the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground and considered the decision of this Court in the case of Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 , in Paras 21 and 26, it is observed and held as under: 21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma vs. 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 vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 . The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract: [Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , SCC pp. 139-140, 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 dependents 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 is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” 7. At paragraph 5 of the aforesaid judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6938 of 2022, the rule of compassionate appointment has been summarized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which reads as under: 5. 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 the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Another vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704, 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. Santosh Vs. State of Karnataka, (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. 8. (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. 8. In Civil Appeal No. 6903 of 2021 (State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Ashish Awasthi) with Civil Appeal No. 6904 of 2021 (State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Baalendu Yadav) at paragraph 4.1 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: 4.1 In the case of India Bank and Others vs. Promila and Another, (2020) 2 SCC 729 , it is observed and held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496 . It is required to be noted that in the case of Amit Shrivas (supra), the very scheme applicable in the present case was under consideration and it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Thus, from the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that 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 such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. 10. In Civil Appeal No. 6938 of 2022 (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case of married daughter, who had sought compassionate appointment and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that she cannot be treated to be a dependent. In this case also, married daughter is seeking compassionate appointment. As per the State Government, married daughter is not dependent as per the Scheme. Further, it is an admitted fact that the deceased left behind this married daughter and her mother, who is the wife of the deceased. In this case also, married daughter is seeking compassionate appointment. As per the State Government, married daughter is not dependent as per the Scheme. Further, it is an admitted fact that the deceased left behind this married daughter and her mother, who is the wife of the deceased. The wife of the government employee gets family pension and other monetary benefits, thus, the mother of this petitioner, definitely, is receiving family pension and has received death benefits of her husband. Thus, there cannot be any necessity to give appointment to the heirs of the deceased as it cannot be said that there is sudden financial crises in the family of the deceased due to his untimely death. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that the husband of this petitioner is unemployed and was dependent on the father-in-law. 11. Considering the facts of this case and the proposition of law, I find no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.