JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd Respondent in his Proceedings Na.Ka.No.7489/A1/2002 dated 11.11.2014 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground.) 1. The order of rejection, rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner states that his mother Tmt.K.Kala died on 02.01.1999, while he was working as Secondary Grade Assistant in Panchayat Union Elementary School, Namathodu, Peranamallur Union. The petitioner states that his mother died leaving behind his father, the petitioner and his sister. At the time of the death of his mother, he was aged about 13 years. The petitioner submitted an application on 20.12.2001, seeking appointment of compassionate ground. His father also made a representation, requesting the authorities to provide appointment to the writ petitioner on compassionate ground. However, the respondents had not taken action immediately and there was a ban for compassionate appointment for the year 2001 to 2006. Even thereafter, the writ petitioner has not pursued his remedy. Finally, he filed W.P.No.21084 of 2014 and this Court directed the authorities to consider the representation on 08.09.2014. Pursuant to the direction, the respondents issued the impugned order, stating that as on the date of the death of the deceased employee, the petitioner was a minor and further his father was also an earning member during the relevant point of time. Thus, the legal heirs of the deceased employee are not eligible to avail the benefits of the scheme of compassionate appointment. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was a minor during the relevant point of time and therefore, he was not eligible to seek appointment. His father, who is the husband of the deceased employee, was also an earning member and therefore, under the scheme, no appointment can be provided under the scheme of appointment. That apart, the mother of the writ petitioner died on 02.01.1999. Now after a lapse of about 22 years, the benefit of scheme cannot be extended. 4. Lapse of time would also provide a ground to draw a factual inference that the penurious circumstances aroused on account of the sudden death of an employee became vanished. That apart, the mother of the writ petitioner died on 02.01.1999. Now after a lapse of about 22 years, the benefit of scheme cannot be extended. 4. Lapse of time would also provide a ground to draw a factual inference that the penurious circumstances aroused on account of the sudden death of an employee became vanished. Thus, Courts have repeatedly held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after several years. It is not as if the scheme is contemplated to provide one appointment to the family of the deceased employee. 5. Scheme of compassionate appointment is in violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Scheme being violative of the equality clause enunciated under the Constitution, it is to be implemented strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions. All appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the rules. Compassionate appointment is an exception and a concession. Scheme of compassionate appointment is not an absolute right, so also, concession can never be claimed as a matter of right. Excess appointment on compassionate ground would result in inefficiency in public administration. No selection is conducted. Rule of reservation has not been followed. Merit assessments are not made. That exactly is the reason why the Courts have held that the scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No selection procedures are followed for such compassionate appointments, the scheme is restricted by the Government itself in order to provide appointment only to the eligible candidates, who all are able to establish the genuinity to claim compassionate appointment. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that appointments on compassionate grounds are streamlined by the Government, so as to provide appointment only on genuine grounds. Even any one of the legal heirs are employed in Government service or in private service and an earning member, then the family of the deceased employee is not eligible for Compassionate appointment. 7. In the present case, the mother of the writ petitioner died in the year 1999. Now 22 years lapsed. In the event of providing appointment on compassionate ground, now after a lapse of 22 years from the date of death of the deceased employee, then the very purpose and object of the scheme would be defeated. 8. 7. In the present case, the mother of the writ petitioner died in the year 1999. Now 22 years lapsed. In the event of providing appointment on compassionate ground, now after a lapse of 22 years from the date of death of the deceased employee, then the very purpose and object of the scheme would be defeated. 8. Even recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Premlata [ (2022) 1 SCC 30 ], has made observations in respect of implementation of the scheme of compassionate appointment and the relevant portion of the observations are extracted hereunder: “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 State of Karnataka vs. V.Somayashree [(2021) 12 SCC 20], 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 [ (2020) 7 SCC 617 ], this Court has summarized the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under: 10.1. That the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule; 10.2. That no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment; 10.3. 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; 10.4. 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; 10.5. The norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. 9. As per the law laid down by this Court in a 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. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right. 9.1. 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 H.P. v. Shashi Kumar [ (2019) 3 SCC 653 ], this Court in paras 21 and 26 had an occasion to consider the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground and considered decision of this Court in Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC [ (2005) 10 SCC 289 ], it is observed and held as under: “21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma, 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 ]. The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract: “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. 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. 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. 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.” “26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077 has adopted the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590 has been duly considered, but the Court observed that it did not appear that the earlier binding precedents of this Court have been taken note of in that case.” 9. Thus, viewing in any angle, the case of the writ petitioner now after a lapse of 22 years cannot be considered. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.