JUDGMENT 1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for compassionate appointment under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996. (’the Rules of 1996’). 2. The facts, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that father of the petitioner (deceased Harlal Singh) was Constable in Rajasthan Police and on 26.01.1991, he was murdered by his wife (petitioner’s mother) and the petitioner’s maternal grand-parents and therefore, they were charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 302 and 328 of IPC. It is stated that on 14.02.1991, mother of the petitioner (Vimla) decided to remarry and she executed an agreement (Ikrarnama) dated 14.02.1991 wherein she relinquished all her rights in the movable and immovable properties and service benefits of the deceased-Harlal in the favour of the petitioner. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was about 13 months old and in 2007, upon attaining the age of majority, the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment in the respondent-department as per Rule 10 of Rules of 1996. The said application was not accepted and the petitioner was denied appointment on compassionate basis. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s application was rejected on hyper technical ground of mother’s signature not being present on the application. It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner was the one who had killed the father of the petitioner and who had relinquished all her rights in the father’s property, including that of service benefits. Based on the said agreement, the petitioner even secured a succession certificate from a competent Court of Law vide order dated 22.03.2000. Learned counsel contends that in the presence of the agreement (Ikrarnama) dated 14.02.1991 and succession certificate dated 22.03.2000, the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment should not have been rejected on a technical ground of consent of mother. 4. Learned counsel further submits that this Court had already granted an interim order in the petitioner’s favour. Vide order dated 25.04.2017, this Hon’ble Court had directed that no appointment letter be issued in favour of Respendent No.5, who is the brother of the petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-State and learned Counsel for the private respondent have objected to the contentions made by the petitioner. Vide order dated 25.04.2017, this Hon’ble Court had directed that no appointment letter be issued in favour of Respendent No.5, who is the brother of the petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-State and learned Counsel for the private respondent have objected to the contentions made by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State has raised a preliminary objection qua maintainability of the writ petition, especially in light of the relief claimed in the Writ Petition. It is submitted that father of the petitioner died in the year 1991, Writ Petition was filed in the year 2008 and today we are in 2022 and therefore, at this belated stage, petition for compassionate appointment cannot be entertained. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Ors. vs. Anusree K.B.: AIR 2022 SC 4766 . On merits, learned counsel for the respondent-state argues that as per Rule 10 of Rules of 1996, the application for compassionate appointment has to be made in the prescribed format within a period of 90 days from the date of death of the government servant. In the present case, the application was filed in the year 2007 whereas the government servant died in the year 1991, i.e. after a hopeless delay of approximately 17 years. Further, according to Rule 10 of Rules of 1996, the applicant is required to take consent from the other dependants whereas in the present case, the petitioner and his brother are both fighting over compassionate appointment. 6. Heard the arguments advanced by both sides, scanned the record and considered the judgments cited at Bar. 7. In the present case, it is undisputed that the application for compassionate appointment was only filed by the petitioner in the year 2007 whereas the death of the government servant took place in 1991. Rule 10 of Rules of 1996 specifies a time frame of 90 days for filing application for compassionate appointment, but in the instant case, the application was filed after about 17 years. It is also undisputed that both the petitioner and his brother are contesting over compassionate appointment. Mandate of Rule 10 of Rules of 1996 were, prima facie, not followed. It is also undisputed that both the petitioner and his brother are contesting over compassionate appointment. Mandate of Rule 10 of Rules of 1996 were, prima facie, not followed. The appointment of the brother of the petitioner, Respondent No.5 herein, was also stayed by orders of this Court after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anusree K.B (supra) held as under: "Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general Rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and 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 such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the Respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the Respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided." 9. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the Respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided." 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India vs. Gouri Devi: AIR 2022 SC 783 held as under: "It is further observed that once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no need to make appointment on compassionate ground at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution." 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. Parden Oraon: AIR 2021 SC 1876 held as under: "The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The 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 the job is offered to the eligible member of the family (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana: (1994) 4 SCC 138 ). It was further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over." 11. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over." 11. Relying upon the above quoted judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, the present petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment was made after a long period of about 17 years from the date of death of the government servant, as allowing the petition would essentially defeat the basic purpose of compassionate appointment. 12. Therefore, relying upon the above quoted judgments (supra), the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.