JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent in Lr.No.32764/Ni.Pi.3/U.3/Ko.Vasisu Velai/2014 dated 29.11.2014 and quash the same and direct the respondents to provide suitable employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.) The order of rejection rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The father of the writ petitioner late I.Paul was working as Lineman in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and died on 26.09.1993 while he was in service. At the time of the death of his father, the petitioner was a minor. Therefore, no application was submitted seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The first application for compassionate appointment though stated to be made in the year 1994 by the mother of the writ petitioner, the respondents have denied the same by stating that no such application was received. The petitioner has not furnished any acknowledgment for the application said to have been filed in the year 1994. 3. The petitioner on attaining the age of majority submitted an application on 01.02.2007 which was acknowledged by the respondents and the said application was rejected on the ground that it was submitted beyond the period of three years and therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the scheme not entertainable. Again the petitioner submitted an application in the year 2013 which was also not considered. The petitioner submitted an application under the Right to Information Act which was replied by the Public Information Officer in letter dated 29.01.2013 wherein it is stated that the application was submitted beyond the period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee and therefore, the application was rejected. Further, it is stated that the petitioner has not completed VIII Standard during the relevant point of time. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has completed VIII Standard but discontinued during IX Standard. 4. Finally, the petitioner submitted an application on 21.10.2014. The said application was rejected in proceedings dated 29.11.2014 which is impugned in the present writ petition. 5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has completed VIII Standard but discontinued during IX Standard. 4. Finally, the petitioner submitted an application on 21.10.2014. The said application was rejected in proceedings dated 29.11.2014 which is impugned in the present writ petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the delay in submitting the application, i.e. beyond the period of three years cannot be ground as during the relevant point of time the Board proceedings permits such application for grant of compassionate appointment. The Board proceedings which was in force during the relevant point of time reveals that there is no bar for submitting an application beyond the period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee. However, subsequently the said Board proceedings were modified and three years period has been fixed in view of the fact that several such applications seeking appointment on compassionate grounds were submitted before the Board after several years which caused difficulty in providing appointment on compassionate grounds. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even the Hon-ble Supreme Court in recent judgment has made an observation that the authorities are not considering the application for compassionate appointment within a reasonable period of time. The delay in considering the application results in denial of the benefit of appointment under the scheme and the authorities must consider the same within a reasonable period of time. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court stating that the period of three years cannot be applied as during the relevant point of time, there is no bar for submission of the application beyond the period of three years. 7. In this context, the respondents have stated that as per B.P.No.46 dated 13.10.1995, the application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee. The petitioner submitted an application on 01.02.2007 and therefore, his application was rejected. 7. In this context, the respondents have stated that as per B.P.No.46 dated 13.10.1995, the application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee. The petitioner submitted an application on 01.02.2007 and therefore, his application was rejected. As per the terms and conditions of the scheme, the application must be submitted within a period of three years, the applicant should have completed 18 years of age within the period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee, in case of widow she should be within 50 years of age, the applicant should possess the minimum qualification of pass in VIII Standard. This being the terms and conditions stipulated for providing appointment on compassionate grounds, the petitioner in this case submitted an application on attaining the age of majority on 01.02.2007 which was rejected. The deceased employee died on 26.09.1993 and on attaining the age of majority and became eligible, the petitioner submitted an application on 01.02.2007, after a lapse of about 14 years from the date of death of the deceased employee. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said application was rejected in the year 2013 after a prolonged period. However, the petitioner also not pursued the remedy except by submitting certain representations which cannot be a reason for this Court now to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 9. At the outset, the period of 29 years lapsed from the date of death of the deceased employee. If at all appointment on compassionate ground is granted after a lapse of 29 years from the date of death of the deceased employee, no doubt the very purpose and object of the scheme is defeated. It is not as if one appointment is to be provided to the family of the deceased employee. The very purpose and object of the scheme is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of sudden death of the employee. Therefore, appointments are to be provided within a reasonable period from the date of death of the deceased employee. The long delay no doubt would cause hardship to the genuine applicants. The very purpose and object of the scheme is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of sudden death of the employee. Therefore, appointments are to be provided within a reasonable period from the date of death of the deceased employee. The long delay no doubt would cause hardship to the genuine applicants. However, yet another view is also to be considered that a long delay is also a ground to reject the application on compassionate grounds as the penurious circumstances aroused on account of sudden death of the employee became vanished due to the efflux of time. The relevancy of appointment on compassionate grounds is the indigent circumstances arising on account of sudden death of the employee, the family no doubt is receiving terminal and retirement benefits of the deceased employee and family pension is also being paid. The Hon-ble Supreme Court also held that the source of income including the retirement benefits and family pension are also to be considered for the purpose of forming an opinion regarding the indigent circumstances prevailing in the family. 10. The scheme of compassionate appointment is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit assessment. There is no selection process. Rule of reservation has not been adopted. Thus, large scale appointment on compassionate ground in Government Institutions would result in inefficiency in Public Administration and further, the opportunity and the fundamental rights of lakhs and lakhs of meritorious candidates who all are aspiring to secure public employment through open competitive process are infringed. Equal opportunity in public employment is the Constitutional mandate. All appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with recruitment rules in force. Compassionate appointment is a concession and therefore it cannot be claimed as an absolute right. Thus the scheme is to be implemented strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated and the long delay is also one of the ground to reject the application as the relevancy regarding the indigent circumstance will be lost. 11. The Supreme Court of India in the recent judgment in Central Bank of India v. Nitin [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 6790] has held as follows: “20. 11. The Supreme Court of India in the recent judgment in Central Bank of India v. Nitin [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 6790] has held as follows: “20. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equality, which enables the dependent family members of a medically incapacitated employee who has no option, but to retire, or a deceased employee, to tide over the immediate crisis caused by the incapacitation or death of the breadwinner. Compassionate Appointment excludes equally or more meritorious candidates, much in need of a job, from the zone of consideration. Consideration for compassionate appointment must, therefore, be strictly in accordance with the prevalent rules for compassionate appointment applicable to the deceased/prematurely retired employee. 21. In this case, there is a financial criteria of eligibility for compassionate appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme. Rules which provide for a financial criteria for appointment on Compassionate ground are valid and lawful rules which have to be construed strictly, as otherwise the quota reserved for compassionate appointment would be filled up excluding others who might be in greater and/or far more acute financial distress.“ 12. In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated that the principles laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryanan and Ors. [ 1994 (4) SCC 138 ] are also to be followed scrupulously. In the said case, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. 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 is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependent 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. 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. 6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 7. It is needless to emphasise that the provisions for compassionate employment have necessarily to be made by the rules or by the executive instructions issued by the Government or the public authority concerned. The employment cannot be offered by an individual functionary on an ad hoc basis.“ 13. In the present case, the deceased employee died on 26.09.1993 and the application was made on 01.02.2007, after a lapse of about 14 years from the date of death of the deceased employee. Thus the relevancy of indigent circumstances on account of sudden death of the deceased employee became vanished. That apart, even after 2007 the petitioner has failed to pursue the application and it was informed through the reply letter to the RTI application that the 2007 application was not considered. Again the petitioner submitted an application on 21.10.2014 which was rejected through the impugned order dated 29.11.2014. Thus the petitioner has not pursued the remedy during the relevant point of time. Going on submitting a representation for several years would not be a ground to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. 14. Securing public employment is a great task to the youth of our great Nation. Thus the petitioner has not pursued the remedy during the relevant point of time. Going on submitting a representation for several years would not be a ground to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. 14. Securing public employment is a great task to the youth of our great Nation. Lakh and lakh of youth are longing to secure public employment through open competitive process and by availing the benefit of rule of reservation. Thus the scheme being a concessional one, it is to be implemented strictly only to the genuine cases where such employment assistance is imminent and immediately required to the family of the deceased employee. In this regard, the Courts have consistently held that field enquiry is to be held to ascertain the genuine indigent circumstances of the family. A trend has been developed that in the event of death any one of the legal heirs have submitting application without reference to the indigent circumstances of the family. It is the duty of the authority to conduct field enquiry to find out the genuine indigent circumstances of the family for the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds. It is made clear that the appointments on compassionate grounds are to be made strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions and such applications submitted are to be considered within a reasonable period of time by the competent authorities and the indigent circumstances are to be verified by conducting field enquiry and the sources of income available to the family of the deceased employee. All these factors are to be considered since the scheme being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and such special schemes are causing infringement of the rights of the meritorious and eligible candidates who all are aspiring to secure public employment through open competitive process in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. 15. In the present case, the application itself has been submitted after a lapse of 14 years from the date of death of the deceased employee and now 29 years lapsed and at this length of time, the claim of the writ petitioner cannot be considered. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.