ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for following relief/s: “to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo in RC.C24-142155/2014, dated 25.08.2020 issued by the respondent No.3 in rejecting the petitioners request for her appointment as Junior Assistant instead of Office Subordinate as per the G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, even though, the petitioner has fulfilled the eligibility criteria for her appointment as Junior Assistant as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the scheme of compassionate appointment and the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant from 14.08.2017 retrospectively with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders …” 2. The issue in the present Writ Petition is that though the petitioner is eligible for the post of Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds as per G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, the petitioner was given appointment as Office Subordinate. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents herein to accommodate her as Junior Assistant in the place of Office Subordinate. The petitioner herein was appointed as Office Subordinate vide proceedings in RCC No.24-112062/2017, dated 14.08.2017 on the demise of her mother on 01.03.2017 in harness. 3. It is the case of the petitioner herein that to hold the post of Junior Assistant, Intermediate is the qualification as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.612, dated 30.10.1991 and the petitioner herein has passed M.Sc. Micro Biology and she is eligible to the post of Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds as on the date of appointment. Despite she is eligible, the respondents have issued appointment as Office Subordinate as such petitioner requested to consider her case for appointment as Junior Assistant instead of Office Subordinate. 4. The petitioner relies on G.O.Ms.No.25 and 112 dated 12.03.2015 and 18.08.2017 respectively, wherein these two G.O.s, the persons who possessed intermediate qualification, were appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds by giving 5 years time to acquire the degree qualification and whereas the petitioner herein has possessed M.Sc. 4. The petitioner relies on G.O.Ms.No.25 and 112 dated 12.03.2015 and 18.08.2017 respectively, wherein these two G.O.s, the persons who possessed intermediate qualification, were appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds by giving 5 years time to acquire the degree qualification and whereas the petitioner herein has possessed M.Sc. Micro Biology, though she is eligible for the post of Junior Assistant, she was given the post of Office Subordinate for the reasons best known to the respondents. Her case was not considered and therefore, she seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint her as Junior Assistant in lieu of office subordinate. 5. It appears from the endorsement dated 25.08.2020, the case of the petitioner was rejected relying on the G.O.Ms.No.292, MA & UD Department, dated 16th May, 1992 on the ground that vacant Junior Assistant posts will be filled up by direct recruitment. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said G.O. is not applicable and the petitioner is not seeking any compassionate appointment on the said G.O. or seeking any promotion to the eligible post and the petitioner ought to have been appointed as Junior Assistant not as Office Subordinate, as per G.O.Ms.No.612 and it was pleaded that the rejection order is untenable and inter alia pleaded to direct the respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioner to appoint as Junior Assistant on humanitarian grounds so as the deceased family is enable to maintain minimum status in the society. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submit that petitioner was obtained information under Right to Information Act and the respondents have issued endorsement vide RCC 24-116-245/2019, dated 26.08.2019 and as per the information provided under the Right to Information Act, there are vacancies of Junior Assistant Post in the year 2017 where as the petitioner was given appointment as Office Subordinate. It is argued that the action of the respondents herein is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and irrational, hence, prayed to direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the place of Office Subordinate. It is argued that the action of the respondents herein is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and irrational, hence, prayed to direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the place of Office Subordinate. And it was explained for accepting the post of office subordinate, as the family is in distress and it is made to accept the post of Office Subordinate to tide over the crisis and inter alia it is argued that mere acceptance of the said post does not amounts to denial of the suitable post and where the petitioner has possessed more than the requisite qualification for the post of Junior Assistant. 8. Per contra, in oppugnation of the contentions raised by the petitioner herein, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit and stated that much more candidates were qualified to hold the post of Junior Assistant, but were given posting in last grade service. The petitioner’s request at this stage cannot be considered and other candidates who were also given posting earlier as Office Subordinate who are having higher education qualifications to hold the post of Junior Assistant. As such, the petitioner cannot claim for her posting as Junior Assistant who has been agreed for the post and after serving four years which may be detrimental to the other candidates who were appointed earlier in the last grade service and having educational qualification to hold the post of Junior Assistant. 9. And orally it is contended that the petitioner ought to have been challenged her initial appointment having not challenged the initial appointment, now she cannot seek a direction to appoint her as Junior Assistant without challenging the initial appointment. 9. And orally it is contended that the petitioner ought to have been challenged her initial appointment having not challenged the initial appointment, now she cannot seek a direction to appoint her as Junior Assistant without challenging the initial appointment. And also contended that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment and the object of compassionate appointment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and also contended that there is a delay in approaching the court and the petitioner was given appointment in 2017 and she is filed the present Writ Petition in 2021 and there is a delay about more than four years and having accepted the employment as office subordinate, the doctrine of estoppels applies and also contend that if the petitioner is appointed as Junior Assistant, the entire seniority list has to be redraw and the same might create a cavil amongst the appointees and also re-exercise at this stage would have been bearing upon the other employees. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. And he relied on judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mumtaz Ynus Mulani (Smt) v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2008) 11 SCC 384 for the proposition that appointment on compassionate grounds can only be granted to tide over the sudden crisis of the family of the deceased and appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. And also relied on the Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bathul Gabriel v. District Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool, (1982) 1 ALT 39 for the proposition that the origin of Government service is contractual. There is offer and acceptance in every case. Hence, once accepted the petitioner cannot challenge, and the employee cannot compel the employer to do so beyond the employment. And he also relied on another Judgment in State of Rajasthan v. UMRAO SINGH for the proposition that once an appointee was appointed in a particular post and accepted the same. Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground when the said compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Therefore, once the right has consummated any further or second consideration for a higher post on the ground of compassionate would not arise. Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground when the said compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Therefore, once the right has consummated any further or second consideration for a higher post on the ground of compassionate would not arise. And he also relied in another judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh & others v. Premlata, 2022(1) SCC 30 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that The posts in classes III and IV are the lowest posts in nonmanual 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 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. 10. This Court relies on the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in I.G. (Karmik) and others v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162 . The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that once a candidate is appointed on compassionate grounds to the lower post without any demur he cannot turn around and contend that he was entitled for higher post having regard to the qualification and the said proposition has been followed in judgment in Mumtaz Ynus Mulani (Smt) v. State of Maharashtra and others (supra 1). No doubt as per G.O.Ms.No.612, the petitioner is entitled for Junior Assistant Post and the relevant provision is hereby extracted: 2. Inspite of the above instructions, certain types of cases are being referred to General Administration (Services) Department either for clarification or for relaxation of the conditions stipulated in the orders governing the appointments made under the social security scheme as also under the medical invalidation scheme formulated in the G.O. third read above. Inspite of the above instructions, certain types of cases are being referred to General Administration (Services) Department either for clarification or for relaxation of the conditions stipulated in the orders governing the appointments made under the social security scheme as also under the medical invalidation scheme formulated in the G.O. third read above. The Government have examined these cases and the following orders are issued in modification of orders issued from time to time wherever they are inconsistent with those orders:- (i) The younger brother/sister of the deceased Government servant who remained unmarried can be considered for appointment under the scheme, provided there is no other earning member in the family. The cases which came up for consideration earlier need not be re-opened. (ii) The adopted son or daughter of the deceased Government Servant may be considered for appointment, if the adoption had taken place legally, at least five years prior to the date of demise of the Government Servant. (iii) Where one deceased employee does not have any male child but leaves behind him a married daughter and an unmarried minor daughter, the choice of selecting one of them for appointment under the social security scheme shall be left to the mother. (iv) If the dependents of the deceased employees are eligible to be considered for any category of post whose pay is equal or less than that of Junior Assistant (L.D.C) and if they satisfy the qualifications and physical standards prescribed for such posts, they can be considered for posts such as, Police Constable in Home Department, Excise Constable in Excise Department, Helper Grade-I and II in Forest Department, Leading Fireman/Fireman in Fire Service Department etc., In any case, no dependent of the deceased Government employee possessing higher qualifications prescribed for the posts of Assistant Engineers, Assistant Executive Engineers, Civil Assistant Surgeons etc., Shall be considered for appointment to post carrying higher scale of pay such as Assistant Engineers, Assistant Executive Engineers, Civil Assistant Surgeons etc., Since the clerical posts in Education Department/Educational Institutions are a few, the dependents of deceased employees can also be considered for the lowest teaching post i.e., posts at present carrying a scale of pay of Rs.1010-1800, in the Education Department/Educational Institutions, if they satisfy the qualifications prescribed under the rules to hold such posts. (v) As the object of the social security scheme is to give immediate relief to the distressed family of the deceased Government employee, a minor who does not attain majority within two years as specified in Government Memo No.618/Ser.A/78-11, General Administration Department, dt.17-12-1979 after the demise of the Government employee, shall not be considered for appointment. In such cases it is decided to grant ex-gratia to the widow/dependent of the deceased employee. Orders regarding quantum of ex- gratia will be issued separately. (vi) In cases where, Diploma holders who do not possess minimum educational qualifications for appointment as Junior Assistants and who have sought appointment as Junior Assistant are exempt from possessing minimum general educational qualifications, provided the duration of study to acquire such qualifications, (i.e., Diploma) is equivalent to or longer than that Intermediate. 11. (vii) Where typewriting in English (Higher) and Telugu (Higher) is an essential qualification for appointment to a post, the candidates who do not possess those qualifications may be considered for appointment to such categories of posts subject to the condition that they should acquire such qualifications within two years after such appointment. (viii) The minimum qualification required to hold the post of Junior Assistant in the Heads of Departments/Directories is Degree and in Subordinate Offices Intermediate. The candidates for compassionate appointment who do not possess the said qualifications can be considered for appointment if they possess at least Intermediate/Tenth Class qualification respectively, by giving reasonably time to acquire higher qualification prescribed under rules to hold such posts. 12. As per the G.O., the petitioner is entitled for the post of Junior Assistant as she is possessed the requisite qualification on the date of appointment. However, the petitioner has accepted the post without any demur for the post of Office Subordinate. Now, at the belated stage of 4 years, cannot raise that she should have been considered to the post of Junior Assistant, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as per the contentions raised by the respondents herein, when the petitioner has accepted a post without any demur, now she cannot raise at this belated stage to appoint him on the ground that she is eligible to the post of Junior Assistant as per G.O.Ms.No.612, dated 30.10.1991. 13. 13. The case of the petitioner herein was rejected vide proceedings dated 25.08.2020 relying on the G.O.Ms.No.292, MA & UD Department, dated 16th May, 1992 on the ground that “the vacant Junior Assistant posts will be filled up by the direct recruitment and also by transfer of service on promotion from the feeder category such as Bill Collectors, Record Assistants, last grade employees and drivers in cyclic order having 5 years of regular service in the feeder category”. The Rejection order itself is not in accordance with the relief claimed by the petitioner herein. The case of the petitioner herein is that she ought to have been appointed as Junior Assistant where as she possessed requisite qualification as per the G.O.Ms.No.612, dated 30.10.1991 and that the order passed by the respondent herein is not inconsonance with the relief claimed by the petitioner herein. Though the impugned Order is not in consonance with the relief claimed by the petitioner herein, the petitioner herein is not entitled for the relief as per the decision quoted supra. 14. For the above said discussion, this Court finds no reasons to direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in I.G. (Karmik) case, Mumtaz Ynus Mulani (Smt) v. State of Maharashtra and others. Hence, this Writ Petition fails. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, no costs. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand closed.