JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondents made in Na.Ka.No.2881/A1/2014 dated 02.09.14 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds consequent to the death of the petitioner mother.) 1. The rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner states that her deceased mother was employed as Junior Assistant in the 3rd respondent School. The mother of the writ petitioner was appointed on Compassionate ground on account of the death of her husband. The father of the writ petitioner was died on 17.06.1991 and the mother of the writ petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground. The mother of the writ petitioner served in the Government High School for about 11 years and died on 08.05.2002. The petitioner states that she is the adopted child of the deceased employee and therefore, she is eligible for compassionate appointment. 3. However, during the relevant point of time, the petitioner was a minor and therefore, not eligible for appointment. The petitioner submitted an application, seeking appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2014 and the said application was rejected on the ground that as per the scheme of compassionate appointment, the application must be submitted within a period of three years and in respect of minors, no post needs to be reserved for appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. The fact remains that the father of the writ petitioner died on 17.06.1991 and the mother of the writ petitioner got appointment on compassionate ground and she served about 11 years and died on 08.05.2002 and the petitioner was adopted by her mother in the year 2002 somewhere before the death of the mother and thereafter, the petitioner claims compassionate appointment. 5. Compassionate appointment is a concession and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Scheme being a concession, is to be implemented scrupulously in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated. Compassionate appointment scheme being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is to be restricted, so as to ensure that the appointments are made on compassionate ground only for deserving cases. Scheme being a concession, is to be implemented scrupulously in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated. Compassionate appointment scheme being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is to be restricted, so as to ensure that the appointments are made on compassionate ground only for deserving cases. The very purpose and object of the scheme is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the sudden death of the Government employee. Thus, the lapse of time is also a ground to draw a factual inference that the penurious circumstances aroused on account of the sudden death became vanished. Thus, the scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be extended beyond the reasonable period, more so, after a lapse of several years. 6. In the present case, the father of the writ petitioner died in the year 1991. Thereafter, the mother of the writ petitioner secured employment on compassionate grounds. She served about 11 years and died on 08.05.2002. The petitioner was adopted in the year 2002. At that point of time, she was a minor. On attaining the age of majority, she submitted an application in the year 2014, which was rejected on the ground of delay. 7. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 vs. State of Maharashtra [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 decision in Govind Prakash Verma [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. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for the appointment on compassionate ground. Thus, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the order impugned passed by the 1st respondent in this writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.