JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to employ the petitioner on compassionate ground based on his representation dated 14.11.2013.) 1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondent to employ the petitioner on compassionate ground based on his representation dated 14.11.2013. 2. The petitioner states that his father late Thiru N.Muniappan was a Driver worked in the respondent-Transport Corporation and on account of an accident, which caused death of three persons, the departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the father of the writ petitioner. The father of the writ petitioner was dismissed from service on 01.11.1994. 3. The father of the writ petitioner raised a dispute in I.D.No.205 of 2005 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem. The Labour Court Salem passed an Award of reinstatement of the father of the writ petitioner with continuity of services. 4. The respondent-Transport Corporation filed WP No.23762 of 2010 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 21.03.2012. However, the respondent-Transport Corporation preferred writ appeal against the order passed in the writ petition viz., WP 23762 of 2010. In the meanwhile, the employee, namely, the father of the writ petitioner, died on 23.04.2013. After the death of his father, the writ petitioner submitted a representation to provide him an appointment on compassionate ground and the said application of the writ petitioner was not considered by the respondent-Transport Corporation. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 5. The purpose of compassionate appointment is not to provide one appointment to the legal heir of the deceased employee. The Scheme of compassionate appointment is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Scheme of compassionate appointment, being a concession, which cannot be claimed as an absolute right. The Scheme is to be restricted only to achieve its objectives. The very purpose and object of the Scheme is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the sudden demise of an employee, while he was in service. Thus, the indigent circumstances with reference to the date of death is of paramount importance for the purpose of considering the case for compassionate appointment. 6. The very purpose and object of the Scheme is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the sudden demise of an employee, while he was in service. Thus, the indigent circumstances with reference to the date of death is of paramount importance for the purpose of considering the case for compassionate appointment. 6. It is not, as if one appointment, which is to be provided to the family members of the deceased employee. The efflux of time is also a ground to draw an inference that on the penurious circumstances aroused on account of the sudden demise became vanished. Thus, the Scheme of compassionate appointment is to be implemented strictly in accordance with its terms and conditions. 7. Lapse of time and long delay are also the grounds to deny the appointment on compassionate grounds. Even at the time of filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner was aged about 32 years and now he would be around 39 years. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not informed this Court whether the petitioner is employed elsewhere or not. That apart, the Scheme cannot be implemented after the lapse of many years. 9. In the present case, the father of the writ petitioner was dismissed from service in the year 1994 itself. The father of the writ petitioner was out of employment for many years till such time, the Labour Court passed an Award. Thereafter also the Management filed the writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed only in the year 2012. Thus the father of the writ petitioner from 1994 to till such time the Labour Court passed an Award, he was not in employment. The father of the writ petitioner was reinstated in service and died within a short span of time i.e., on 23.04.2013. 10. Equal opportunity in public employment is the constitutional mandate. All appointments are to be made under the Constitutional Schemes and by providing equal opportunity to all the eligible citizen, who all are aspiring to secure the public employment through Open Competitive Process. 11. This being the mandate under the Constitution, all Special Schemes providing appointment out of turn is to be restricted to the extent possible, so as to minimise the inequality and to uphold the concept of equal opportunity in public employment. 12. No selection process is being conducted while appointing a person on compassionate ground. 11. This being the mandate under the Constitution, all Special Schemes providing appointment out of turn is to be restricted to the extent possible, so as to minimise the inequality and to uphold the concept of equal opportunity in public employment. 12. No selection process is being conducted while appointing a person on compassionate ground. No merit assessment is made. Rule of Reservation has not been followed. Thus in the event of appointing many persons on compassionate ground, there is a threat to efficiency in public administration and inefficiency in public administration would result in unconstitutionality. Thus the Scheme of compassionate appointment is always to be revisited and to be implemented restrictedly to provide appointment only to the genuine candidates and the family members of the genuine candidates, who all are suffering on account of the sudden death of an employee. That exactly is the reason why the Courts have repeatedly held that the indigent circumstances are to be assessed by conducting filed verification. Even the family pension and terminal benefits settled to the family of the deceased employee, are also to be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the source of income of the family seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Thus all these factors are to be considered by conducting field verification. Only in genuine circumstances and in the event of establishing the indigency beyond the doubt, the appointment is to be provided on compassionate grounds. 13. In the present case, the father of the writ petitioner was dismissed from service in the year 1994 and reinstated in service after several years and thereafter died in the year 2013. Now after 9 years have lapsed from the date of death fo the deceased employee. 14. This being the factum, this Court is not inclined to consider the relief, as such, sought for in the present writ petition. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.