JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 24.07.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.7019 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the impugned order dated 11.08.2019, by which, the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected, has been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition are required to be enumerated, which read as under:-It is the case of the writ petitioner that the father of the appellant was Assistant Teacher in Government Middle School, Kanarowa in the district of Gumla who died in harness on 16.05.2007. On 10.10.2007, the Circle Officer, Bharno issued a Dependency Certificate in favour of mother of the appellant. There was none in the family of the appellant to support and due to pre-mature death of his father, the entire family has been put to a great financial crisis. Thereafter, the mother of the appellant has made an application before the competent authority to consider the case of the appellant when he would attain the age of majority. Vide letter no.348 dated 23.07.2018, the Block Education Extension Officer, Bharno forwarded the application to respondent no.4-District Superintendent of Education, Gumla for consideration. Vide letter no.903 dated 18.03.2019, the respondent no.4 placed the case of the appellant for consideration before the District Compassionate Appointment Committee through the respondent no.3-District Establishment Deputy Collector, Gumla on 26.07.2019. Vide letter no.600(ii) dated 27.07.2019, the respondent no.3 intimated that on 23.07.2018, the application of the appellant for employment was made available to his office, i.e., after 11 years of death of the father of the appellant and therefore, due to such delay, the case of the appellant was not considered. Vide letter no.6634 dated 11.08.2019, the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, Gumla intimated the respondent no.4 that the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting held on 05.08.2019, declined to entertain such application of the appellant. Vide letter no.6634 dated 11.08.2019, the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, Gumla intimated the respondent no.4 that the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting held on 05.08.2019, declined to entertain such application of the appellant. It is evident that the writ petitioner has made an application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground and as per the writ petitioner, the said application was made after attaining the age of majority but the same having been rejected vide order dated 11.08.2019, against which, writ petition being W.P.(S) No.7019 of 2019 has been filed but the same has been dismissed on the ground that the application so made having been filed after lapse of period of five years, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 3. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that there is no laches on the part of the writ petitioner, since, admittedly he was minor at the time of death of his father. But the moment when he has attained his majority, the application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground was made. The authority ought to have taken into consideration the bona fide delay caused in making application but having not done so, the impugned order dated 11.08.2019 has been passed, therefore, the order impugned suffers from illegality. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the learned Single Judge by refusing to interfere with the impugned order. 4. Per contra, Mrs. Shivani Kapoor, learned AC to SC-II appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the very scheme under which the consideration is to be made for appointment on compassionate ground is the Rule of 2015 enshrined under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India which mandates that the application for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground is to be made within the period of five years from the date of death of bread earner. But here in the instant case, the application has been filed by the writ petitioner after lapse of five years, i.e., on 23.07.2018, while according to the writ petitioner, he has attained his majority sometime in the year, 2012. But here in the instant case, the application has been filed by the writ petitioner after lapse of five years, i.e., on 23.07.2018, while according to the writ petitioner, he has attained his majority sometime in the year, 2012. It has been contended by the learned State Counsel that even after attaining the age of majority, the application has been filed for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground after lapse of five years. It has further been contended that although the parity has been sought for on the basis of the National Coal Wage Agreement which also provides provision for consideration of case for appointment on compassionate ground but the same has been discarded by the learned Single Judge by coming to the conclusion that the condition stipulated in the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) is having no bearing with the scheme formulated by the State Government. Therefore, the argument has been advanced that the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects of the matter has rightly not interfered with the impugned order. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 6. This Court before entering into the legality and propriety of the case, deems it fit and proper to refer certain judicial pronouncements on the issue of compassionate appointment. In the case of Jagdish Prasad Vrs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (1996) 1 SCC 301 , Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the object of compassionate appointment held that the object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board Vrs. Naresh Tanwar and Another reported in (1996) 8 SCC 23 the Hon'ble Apex Court declined to grant relief to the dependent of an employee who was minor at the time of death of the bread earning Government employee. In the case of State of U.P. and Others Vrs. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board Vrs. Naresh Tanwar and Another reported in (1996) 8 SCC 23 the Hon'ble Apex Court declined to grant relief to the dependent of an employee who was minor at the time of death of the bread earning Government employee. In the case of State of U.P. and Others Vrs. Paras Nath reported in AIR 1998 SC 2612 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. It was further observed that none of these considerations can operate while the application is made after a long period of time. In the case of Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others Vrs. K. R. Vishwanath reported in (2005) 7 SCC 206 the Hon'ble Apex Court, after taking into consideration its various judgments, reiterated that the appointment to the public service can only be made on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an exception to general constitutional mandate in the interest of justice under peculiar circumstances. It was further observed that where law prescribes limitation for making an application for compassionate appointment, it has to be adhered to. From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments referred herein above, it is settled proposition that compassionate appointment cannot be considered to be a source of recruitment or another mode of recruitment to government/public service. The object and purpose of compassionate appointment for the dependent of the deceased, Government servant is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family whose sole bread earner died leaving the family in lurch. The purpose is to enable the family to overcome its immediate financial needs. The compassionate appointment cannot be given as a matter of course, and depends upon various factors, including the financial condition of the family of the deceased and other relevant factors. Since compassionate appointment is deviation from the constitutional mandate contemplated by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which permits employment providing equal and fair opportunity to all the eligible persons, it is necessary that the compassionate appointment is regulated by law/rules so as not to nullify the constitutional spirit. 7. Since compassionate appointment is deviation from the constitutional mandate contemplated by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which permits employment providing equal and fair opportunity to all the eligible persons, it is necessary that the compassionate appointment is regulated by law/rules so as not to nullify the constitutional spirit. 7. Reverting to the facts of the case, the fact which is not in dispute is that the father of the writ petitioner had died in harness on 16.05.2007. The writ petitioner admittedly was minor having the age of 13 years at the time of death of his father. He attains the majority on 30.05.2012. The application has been filed on 23.07.2018 for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the provision as contained under Clause-10 of the Regulation dated 01.12.2015 floated by the State of Jharkhand in exercise of power conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said application has been rejected vide order dated 11.08.2019 and the same having been challenged by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.7019 of 2019 but the learned Single Judge has also refused to interfere with the same vide impugned order dated 24.07.2020, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. 8. It is evident from the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred above that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be sought for as a matter of right and not by way of alternative mode of appointment, since it is in the teeth of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, the State of Jharkhand has come out with the Resolution in exercise of power conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for consideration of case for appointment on compassionate ground in order to provide immediate succor to the dependent of the deceased employee who had died in harness. 9. It is evident as has been referred by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order that under the aforesaid Regulation, the application is required to be made within the period of five years from the date of death of bread earner. 9. It is evident as has been referred by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order that under the aforesaid Regulation, the application is required to be made within the period of five years from the date of death of bread earner. Herein, the death of the father of the writ petitioner took place on 16.05.2007 and as such, the application for appointment on compassionate ground ought to have made up to 16.05.2012, but no such application was filed. The writ petitioner has taken the plea that as on the date of death of his father, he was minor having the age of 13 years and as such, there was no question of making an application within the period of five years as stipulated under the mandate of the Regulation dated 01.12.2015. 10. As has been pointed out by the learned State Counsel that the writ petitioner even though became major sometime in the year, 2012 but even after lapse of five years from attaining the date of majority, the application was filed on 23.07.2018. The Administrative Authority, while considering the case of the writ petitioner, has rejected the claim being barred by limitation since the application for consideration of case for appointment on compassionate ground was made after lapse of five years. Since, the appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to regular appointment but if there is scheme floated by the State, the requirement is to follow the terms and conditions of the scheme or the Regulation. 11. Here in the given facts of the case, the writ petitioner is seeking consideration for appointment on compassionate ground in the light of the Regulation dated 01.12.2015 which mandates for making such application within the period five years from the date of death of the deceased employee. Admittedly, no such application was filed within the period of five years. 12. The plea has been taken that on the date when the father of the writ petitioner had died, the writ petitioner may be minor but merely because he was minor, there cannot be any relaxation since the period of five years for making an application has been commanded in the Regulation dated 01.12.2015. If such application has been filed irrespective of any reason, period of five years as mandated under the Regulation dated 01.12.2015, the said application is required to be rejected. 13. If such application has been filed irrespective of any reason, period of five years as mandated under the Regulation dated 01.12.2015, the said application is required to be rejected. 13. Here in the given facts of the case that it is not the case that immediately after the death of father of the writ petitioner, he has made an application, rather, such application was filed even after of lapse of five years from the date of attaining the majority, i.e., on 23.07.2018. 14. Considering the aforesaid fact and taking into consideration the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order as also the very object and intent of appointment on compassionate ground which is to provide immediate succor to the bereaved family for the purpose of survival, if the Administrative Authority has taken decision by rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner being barred by limitation, which according to our considered view cannot be said to suffer from an error, reason being that the period of limitation is for specific purpose, i.e., dependent of the bereaved family since requires immediate succor so as for survival of the dependent of the deceased family and herein, five years period has been provided to make an application. The family if survived beyond the period of five years, then the very object and intent of appointment on the compassionate ground will be said to be not available, since, the dependent of the deceased employee if has been able to survive for such a long period, there is no reason to consider the case on compassionate ground. 15. Accordingly, this Court after considering the reason assigned as referred above is of the view that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order suffers from no error. 16. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.