JUDGMENT : ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J. The instant special appeal has been filed by the appellant (hereinafter ‘the appellant’) feeling aggrieved against order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.10.2019, whereby writ petition filed by the appellant seeking compassionate appointment has been dismissed. 2. The facts, in the nutshell, are that the appellant claiming himself to be the eldest son of Late Shri Birdi Chand Saini (father of the appellant), who was serving on the post of Class-IV employee in the Corporation and died while in service, had submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment. 3. The appellant has pleaded in his writ petition that his father passed away on 29.01.2018 and the appellant's mother -wife of late Shri Birdi Chand Saini and one more son - younger brother of the appellant - Subhash Chand Saini, were the family members of the deceased employee and as such, the appellant having sole responsibility to maintain his mother and other family members, since had acquired the education qualifications of B. Sc. and M.B.A. in Human Resources, applied for compassionate appointment and submitted an application (along-with requisite formalities) on 22.02.2018. 4. The appellant has pleaded in his writ petition that the application submitted by him was duly supported by the affidavit of his mother-Smt. Santosh Devi and his brother Subhash Chand Saini, wherein they deposed that appointment could be given to the appellant. 5. The appellant has pleaded in his petition that the respondent-employer issued the impugned order dated 13.03.2018, whereby claim of the appellant was rejected on account of having more than two children. The impugned order referred to the circular/Notification dated 08.04.2003 and the circular dated 13.08.2004 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan. 6. The appellant, while assailing the impugned order dated 13.03.2018, pleaded in his writ petition that the circulars dated 08.04.2003 and 13.08.2004 issued by the State of Rajasthan, were not applicable in respect of employment on compassionate ground to be granted in the office of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation-Employer. 7. The appellant, in his writ petition, further pleaded that the employer has promulgated Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (Recruitment of Defendants or Corporation Employees Dying While in Service) Regulations, 1983 (hereinafter shall be referred as the Regulations of 1983’). 8. 7. The appellant, in his writ petition, further pleaded that the employer has promulgated Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (Recruitment of Defendants or Corporation Employees Dying While in Service) Regulations, 1983 (hereinafter shall be referred as the Regulations of 1983’). 8. The appellant has pleaded that the relevant compassionate Regulations of 1983 did not provide for any disqualification in respect of appointment on compassionate ground on account of having a particular number of children. 9. The appellant has pleaded that the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1974 (hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Regulations of 1974’) were also promulgated by the Employer and even while considering the cases of the eligible candidates in respect of regular appointment, there was no disqualification on account of having more than two children. 10. The appellant, in the writ petition, further pleaded that the impugned order though had given an alternate way of seeking compassionate appointment by the younger brother of the appellant-Subhash Chand Saini and as such, however the said offer of employment to the younger brother was no solace to the appellant, as the appellant being the eldest son of the deceased father, had to look after his mother. 11. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed at admission stage and therefore, the present special appeal has been filed. 12. The respondents have filed their reply in the present special appeal. The respondents, in their reply, have pleaded that the writ petition filed by the appellant has rightly been dismissed by the learned Single Judge and no interference is required by the Division Bench. 13. The respondents, in their reply, have pleaded that the appellant did not fulfill the requirement of getting compassionate appointment as per Regulation 5 of the Regulations of 1983. The respondents have pleaded that merely because there is a provision of relaxation in normal recruitment Rules/Regulations, the same does not confer any right in favour of the appellant to seek appointment. 14. The respondents have pleaded that the Employer-Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation had replied back to the mother of the appellant and communicated the letter dated 13.03.2018 to the effect that the appellant was not entitled for compassionate appointment on the ground that he had three children, born after 01.06.2002 in the light of Notification dated 08.04.2003 and a Circular dated 13.08.2004 issued by the State Government. 15. 15. The respondents have further pleaded that the subsequent Notification dated 29.10.2005 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, clearly provided that the Rule of having more than two children is with the exception and applicable only in the case of widow of deceased employee and since the appellant was having more than two children, as such, he was not entitled for appointment. 16. The respondents have further pleaded that the Corporation issued several letters i.e. on 13.03.2018, 05.04.2018, 08.05.2018 & 02.07.2018 informing mother of the appellant that the elder son of the deceased i.e. appellant, was not entitled for compassionate appointment. 17. The respondents have further pleaded that Regulation 35 of the Regulations of 1974 clearly provides that if any provision relating to service matter is not incorporated by the Corporation, then the provision will continue to operate, as contained in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 framed by the State of Rajasthan till corporation makes such provision. 18. The respondents have further pleaded that the appellant is not entitled for compassionate appointment in view of Notification dated 29.10.2005 issued by the State of Rajasthan, which clearly provides a restriction on compassionate appointment on having more than two children. 19. The respondents have further pleaded that the right of compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the claim which was made by the appellant was not to be considered and bona-fides of the Employer were to be seen, as job on compassionate appointment was offered to the mother as well as younger son, who were having the requisite qualification. 20. The respondents have pleaded in reply that the appellant himself cannot be the sole bread earner for the family after death of his father and even the younger brother can look after the interest of his mother and as such, no relief is required to be granted to the appellant. 21. Learned counsel Mr. Vigyan Shah appearing for the appellant, while assailing the findings of learned Single Judge, has made following submissions:— 21.1. The impugned order dated 13.03.2018 is based on a wrong premise, as Notification of Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan dated 08.04.2003 and circular dated 13.08.2004 are not applicable at all in respect of consideration of cases while giving compassionate appointment in the Corporation. The impugned order dated 13.03.2018 is based on a wrong premise, as Notification of Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan dated 08.04.2003 and circular dated 13.08.2004 are not applicable at all in respect of consideration of cases while giving compassionate appointment in the Corporation. The Notification dated 08.04.2003 had made amendment in various service Rules and the said amendment was made applicable to as many as different 104 Services Rules in the State of Rajasthan and even in the Schedule which was appended to the Notification dated 08.04.2003, the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Rules of 1996’) were not included and as such, the respondents have wrongly taken the recourse to the Notification dated 08.04.2003. The subsequent circular dated 13.08.2004 was only in respect of reiteration of earlier notification dated 08.04.2003 and it was required to be implemented by the different heads of Department of State Government in a proper manner. 21.2. The case of the appellant was required to be governed by the statutory Rules, which have been framed by the employer. Regulation 5 of the Regulations of 1983 provided recruitment of a member of the deceased family giving a suitable employment in the Corporation against the existing vacancy in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules/regulations, provided such member fulfills the educational qualification and other qualifications of recruitment. Having more than two children is not prescribed as disqualification under the relevant Compassionate Rules and as such, case of the appellant was required to be governed by the prevalent Rules. 21.3. The Regulations of 1974 have been framed by the employer in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 42 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (hereafter ‘the Central Act of 1962’) and as such, the Rules which are promulgated by the State Government in respect of giving compassionate appointment, cannot be ipso-facto made applicable. The issue with regard to disqualification for appointment even under the Regulations of 1974 only contained two disqualification i.e. (a) a person, who has previously been dismissed from the service of the Corporation or from a Department of a State or from any other Government Institution; and (b) a person, who has been convicted in the Court of Law for any offence involving moral turpitude. The disqualification for regular appointment since does not contain any clause of having more than two children even in the normal employment, the employer cannot deny the right of compassionate appointment to the eligible persons by referring to the disqualification for compassionate appointment of the Regulations of 1974. 21.4. The reliance placed by the respondents on Regulation 35 is wholly misplaced, as it deals with the situation, where terms and conditions of service of any employee, is not covered by the Regujations/Rules of 1974 and till such time the Corporation makes its own Rules, regulating such matters, the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules may apply. Learned counsel submitted that first of all the said Regulations of 1974 relate to appointment of a person and after appointment, if certain terms and conditions of employees is not covered, in such an eventuality, the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules may be attracted. 21.5. There is no provision in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 which deals with the appointment on compassionate ground and in the State of Rajasthan, it is only the Rules of 1996, which governs the field of offering compassionate appointment in various Govt. Departments. 21.6. An offer of appointment to the younger brother is no solace to the appellant, as mother and younger brother of the appellant have already given the requisite affidavit of offering appointment on the suitable post to the appellant. 21.7. The father of the appellant had expired on 29.01.2018 and without any delay within a period of two months, the application for compassionate appointment was filed by the appellant and as such, there has been no delay in filing the application on account of which the compassionate appointment can be denied to the appellant. 21.8. The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition has not considered the facts as well as the law and only on the basis of interpretation given to the Rules of 1996, the impugned order has been passed without considering the various legal issues, which were raised before the leaned Single Judge. 22. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. R.A. Katta appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge need not to be interfered by this Court. 23. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. R.A. Katta has made following submissions, while supporting the order passed by the learned Single Judge:— 23.1. 22. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. R.A. Katta appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge need not to be interfered by this Court. 23. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. R.A. Katta has made following submissions, while supporting the order passed by the learned Single Judge:— 23.1. The purpose of granting compassionate appointment was to give minimum succour to the family, as the sole bread earner of the family had expired. The respondent-employer had immediately offered employment to the younger brother of the appellant and as such, bona-fide of the employer cannot be questioned in any manner or their decision cannot be termed as arbitrary. 23.2. The claim of the appellant has been examined by the respondents by keeping in mind the purpose of giving appointment. The Authorities have rightly issued order dated 13.03.2018, as the employer had to consider whether the appellant fulfills the minimum condition of eligibility requirement in getting compassionate appointment or not. The appellant was having more than two children, who were bom after 01.06.2002 and as such, the appellant, having such disqualification, could not have been considered for appointment. 23.3. The claim of the appellant has rightly been examined by the Authorities by keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court from time to time. Merely by submitting an application or having eligibility to claim compassionate appointment, the same will not result into getting an employment, compassionate appointment is a special provision to mitigate the circumstances created by death of a Government employee. 23.4. The Apex Court time and again has laid down the law that compassionate appointment is not a regular mode of selection, it is only a compassion shown by the employer to the family of the deceased Government employee and as such, no right can be claimed before the Court that in all eventualities, appointment is required to be given. 23.5. The Apex Court in the catena of cases has laid down the law that if application is filed after delay or the case is considered at a belated stage, the very purpose of granting compassionate appointment, is frustrated. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Apex Court:— 1. 23.5. The Apex Court in the catena of cases has laid down the law that if application is filed after delay or the case is considered at a belated stage, the very purpose of granting compassionate appointment, is frustrated. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Apex Court:— 1. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, [ (2019) 3 SCC 653 ], The relevant para 28 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:— “28. The same principle has been reiterated in another decision of a Bench of two-Judges of this Court in State Bank of India v. Surya Narain Tripathi,. While adverting to a submission of learned counsel based on the decision in Govind Prakash Verma, (supra), this Court noted thus : (Surya Narain Tripathi case, SCC P.741, paras 8-9) 8. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, where a view has been taken that the compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that another member of the family had received appropriate employment and the service benefits were Adequate. We may humbly state that this view runs counter to the view which was taken earlier in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, which was not cited before the Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC,. The subsequent two judgments which were referred above also take the same view as in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana,. Mr. Vikas Singh has drawn of attention to the judgment in SBI v. Somvir Singh, where the 1998 Scheme has been considered. 9. In all the matters of compassionate appointment it must be noticed that it is basically a way out for the family which is financially in difficulties on account of the death of the bread earner. It is not an avenue for a regular employment as such. This is in fact an exception to the provisions under Article 16 of the Constitution. That being so, if an employer points out that the financial arrangement made for the family subsequent to the death of the employee is adequate, the members of the family cannot insist that one of them ought to be provided a comparable appointment. This being the principle which has been adopted all throughout, it is difficult for us to accept the submission made on behalf of the Respondent.” 2. This being the principle which has been adopted all throughout, it is difficult for us to accept the submission made on behalf of the Respondent.” 2. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Parkash Chand, [ (2019) 4 SCC 285 ]. The relevant paras 10 to 12 of the said judgment are quoted as hereunder:— “10. In the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, it was not open to the High Court to re-write the terms of the policy. It is well-settled that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State lays down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased government employee. [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, Punjab National Bank v. Ashwani Kumar Teneja, State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh, Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, State Bank of India v. Surya Nara, in Tripathi and Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar]. 11. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable. The High Court has virtually rewritten the terms of the Policy and has issued a direction to the State to consider applications which do not fulfill the terms of the Policy. This is impermissible. 12. That apart, we find from the record that the father of the Respondent died on 4-1-1997. Though the Respondent applied on attaining majority, as permissible under the Policy, the application was rejected on 25-4-2008. The writ petition was filed nearly two years and six months thereafter. Apart from stating that the elder brother of the Respondent who was engaged in government service was living separately, there were no factual averments in support of the plea. In any event, as we have already held, the High Court was not justified in issuing a direction which would breach the policy framed by the State.” 3. Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729 . The relevant paras 4 & 20 of the said judgment are quoted as hereunder:— “4. It is trite to emphasise, based on numerous judicial pronouncements of this Court, that compassionate appointment is not an alternative to the normal course of appointment, and that there is no inherent right to seek compassionate appointment. The relevant paras 4 & 20 of the said judgment are quoted as hereunder:— “4. It is trite to emphasise, based on numerous judicial pronouncements of this Court, that compassionate appointment is not an alternative to the normal course of appointment, and that there is no inherent right to seek compassionate appointment. The objective is only to provide solace and succour to the family in difficult times and, thus, the relevancy is at that stage of time when the employee passes away. 20. We have to keep in mind the basic principles applicable to the cases of compassionate employment, i.e., succour being provided at the stage of unfortunate demise, coupled with compassionate employment not being an alternate method of public employment. If these factors are kept in mind, it would be noticed that the Respondents had the wherewithal at the relevant stage of time, as per the norms, to deal with the unfortunate situation which they were faced with. Thus, looked under any Schemes, the Respondents cannot claim benefit, though, as clarified aforesaid, it is only the relevant Scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the employee, which could have been considered to be applicable, in view of the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank. It is not for the Courts to substitute a Scheme or add or subtract from the terms thereof in judicial review, as has been recently emphasized by this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Parkash Chand,.” Learned counsel also placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in D.B Special Appeal Writ No. 261/2020 (Ramdev v. State of Rajasthan), dated 30.07.2020. 24. Learned counsel, on the strength of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench, submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench has laid down the law that if there is no provision in the Rules, providing for relaxation of eligibility qualification and other service conditions, appointment cannot be offered to the dependent of the deceased Government servant, having more than two children. 25. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of (i) Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, (Civil Appeal No. 4103/2022) decided on 20.05.2022, (ii) Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India. 25. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of (i) Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, (Civil Appeal No. 4103/2022) decided on 20.05.2022, (ii) Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India. (Civil Appeal No. 1620/2022 arising out of SLP (C) 18571/2018) decided on 24.02.2022 and (iii) State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, [ AIR 2023 SC 1467 ]. 26. We have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 27. The first issue to be decided by this Court is in respect of legality of order dated 13.03.2018, whereby claim of the appellant has been turned down on the basis of two circulars issued by the State Government dated 08.04.2003 and 13.08.2004. 28. It would be relevant to quote (i) Regulation 5 of the Regulations of 1983, (ii) Regulation 35 of the Regulations of 1974 and (iii) Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 for ready reference:— (i) Regulation 5 of the Regulations of 1983:— “5. Recruitment of a Member of the family of the deceased:—In case of deceased Corporation employee, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central/State Government or Statutory Board/Organisation/Corporation owned or controlled by the Central/State Government, shall on making an application for the purpose be given a suitable employment in the Corporation without delay only against an existing vacancy in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules/regulations, provided such member fulfills the educational and other qualifications of recruitment. In the event of non-availability of vacancy or any other members of the family, being unqualified or minor is not found suitable or eligible for immediate employment, then such cases should be considered immediately on the availability of the post or any one of them becomes qualified or eligible or such employment under these regulations.” (ii) Regulation 35 of the Regulations of 1974:— “35. Application of R.S.R.:— To the extent any matter relating to terms and conditions of service of any employee is not covered by these Rules, and till such time as the Corporation forms its rules regulating such matters, the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules shall apply.” (iii) Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996:— “7. Application of R.S.R.:— To the extent any matter relating to terms and conditions of service of any employee is not covered by these Rules, and till such time as the Corporation forms its rules regulating such matters, the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules shall apply.” (iii) Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996:— “7. Qualifications:— (1) The dependent should possess the qualifications prescribed for the post under the concerned service rules at the time of appointment. (2) While being considered for appointment to Class IV service, the requirement of educational qualification for the post shall be dispensed with. (3) Before a dependent is appointed, the Appointing Authority shall satisfy itself that he/she is otherwise for appointment in Government service looking to his/her character and physical fitness and fulfillment of other general conditions prescribed in the concerned service rules.” 29. This Court, on a bare reading of Notification dated 08.04.2003, finds that the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan had exercised its power by making amendment in the various service Rules. 30. This Court finds that the said notification had provided in the Schedule that as many as 104 service Rules were amended and the State Government had prescribed eligibility condition that a candidate will not be eligible for appointment to the service who has more than two children on and after 01.06.2022. 31. This Court, on a bare reading of the said notification, finds that even the Compassionate Rules of 1996 of the Govt, of Rajasthan was not included in the said Schedule, and as such, it cannot be inferred from any stretch of imagination that the State Government had intended to amend the Rules of 1996. 32. This Court further finds that there is a reference of notification dated 13.08.2004 in the impugned order passed by the respondents. This Court further finds that the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan had issued circular/order, whereby the State reiterated the earlier condition imposed in the notification dated 08.04.2003 and directed all the appointing Authorities to strictly follow the Rules of not offering appointment to any candidate who had more than two children after a cut-off date. 33. This Court finds that the said circular/order dated 13.08.2004 was also not applicable in the present facts of the case, while case of the present appellant was to be decided. 34. 33. This Court finds that the said circular/order dated 13.08.2004 was also not applicable in the present facts of the case, while case of the present appellant was to be decided. 34. This Court finds substance in the submission of counsel for the appellant that once the statutory regulations have been framed by the Employer-Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation, governing the conditions of offering compassionate appointment, the case of any eligible person is required to be considered according to the Rules/Regulations which have been framed by the Employer. 35. This Court finds that in the present case the respondent-Corporation has framed the Regulations of 1983, and a bare perusal of Regulation 5 thereof, reveals that one member of the family who is not already employed under the Central/State Government or Statutory Board/Organization/Corporation owned or controlled by the Central/State Government, shall on making an application for giving suitable employment in the Corporation without delay will be considered against an existing vacancy in relaxation of the normal recruitment Rules/Regulations, provided such member fulfills the educational and other qualifications of recruitment. This Court finds that Regulation 5 of the Regulations of 1983 has not provided any disqualification of having more than two children. 36. This Court further finds that the Regulations of 1974 have been framed by the Employer exercising its power under Section 42 of the Central Act of 1962 and even in the said Regulation, disqualification for appointment does not contain a clause, where a person can be deprived from appointment, if he is otherwise eligible except on the condition of dismissal from previous employment and conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. 37. This Court finds that since even the disqualification provided for regular appointment does not contain such condition, it will not be possible for this Court to interpret that such condition has to read in the disqualification of compassionate appointment. However, this Court may not be misunderstood to say that the employer does not have any power to provide eligibility conditions or disqualification, and it is for the employer to prescribe the relevant conditions and as such, this Court from that point of view, has not expressed its opinion. 38. However, this Court may not be misunderstood to say that the employer does not have any power to provide eligibility conditions or disqualification, and it is for the employer to prescribe the relevant conditions and as such, this Court from that point of view, has not expressed its opinion. 38. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that there will be no applicability of Regulation 35, which has been invoked by the respondents, while filing the reply to the writ petition before the Division Bench. This Court, on a bare perusal of Regulation 35, finds that the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules, may be made applicable to the employees of the Corporation, if there is some insufficiency or gap, where no specific terms and conditions of service of employee is provided or covered, whereas, invoking Regulation 35 will not be applicable in the present case, where appointment is to be offered on compassionate ground as the same is governed by Special Regulations of 1983. 39. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the employer has been very considerate in offering appointment to another son of the deceased Government employee and as such, this Court should not draw any inference that no minimum succour was given to the family members, suffice it to say by this Court that the very premise, on which the impugned order was passed, is not based on a legal premise, which was required to be considered by the respondents and as such, this bona-fide, which is shown by the employer in respect of offering alternate employment, is no solace to the appellant. 40. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the right to seek compassionate appointment is not a vested right, this Court finds that the Apex Court time and again has reiterated the proposition of law that if a particular service Rule or the scheme of compassionate appointment is introduced by the employer, the same is required to be followed. This Court finds that once the specific regulations have been framed by the employer for giving compassionate appointment, the same was required to be followed and it is not that the Court is evolving its own policy of giving compassionate appointment as canvassed by the respondents. 41. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. This Court finds that once the specific regulations have been framed by the employer for giving compassionate appointment, the same was required to be followed and it is not that the Court is evolving its own policy of giving compassionate appointment as canvassed by the respondents. 41. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. RA Katta submitted that mother of the appellant has already been granted the service benefits including the post retiral benefits like pension, Gratuity, PF and other dues. This Court finds that even if employer has granted service benefits to the widow on account of death of her husband, the same cannot be a relevant criterion for depriving the claim of compassionate appointment until Rules or scheme prohibits such appointment. 42. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Parkash Chand, (supra) has directed for not considering the cases of compassionate appointment in violation of policy and as such, this Court is also not required to interfere in the present matter. This Court, on careful reading of the judgment cited by learned counsel, finds that the Apex Court in the said judgment has clearly laid down that if there is e policy of the employer to offer appointment, then only such appointment can be offered and the High Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-write the terms of the policy. This Court finds that the said judgment has nowhere restricted the High Court to grant relief where regulations are already framed by the employer and as such, the said judgment is of little assistance to counsel for the respondents. 43. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment reported in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, (supra), this Court finds that the Apex Court in that case, referred the case of SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi, [ (2014) 15 SCC 739 ], The Apex Court again reiterated the principle that if an application is filed belatedly and the financial arrangements of the family are already secured then offering of appointment at a belated stage will not be in consonance with the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Court finds that the said judgment has not anywhere restricted the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to consider the particular regulation, which has been framed by the employer itself in relation to the compassionate appointment and application is submitted without any delay and as such, the said judgment is of little assistance to learned counsel for the respondents. 44. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on a judgment reported in the case of Indian Bank v. Promila, (supra). This Court, on careful reading of the judgment passed by the Apex Court, finds that the Apex Court has again reiterated that if any scheme is framed by the employer to give appointment, then such scheme is required to be followed and the relevant date of the consideration of case, will be as per the strict provisions of the scheme. This Court finds that, in the present facts of the case, Regulations as have already been framed by the employer and only according to that, the case of the appellant is required to be considered. 45. This Court finds that the Apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, (supra) has considered the issue of grant of compassionate appointment as per the relevant rules when application was submitted by a candidate therein. The Apex Court found that if the subsequent scheme or Rules have been introduced at the time of consideration of the case for compassionate appointment, the relevant date would be the date of application of compassionate appointment and even change of scheme subsequently or change of rules, will not govern the field. This Court finds that the Apex Court has also observed that the purpose of giving compassionate appointment is required to be fulfilled by giving immediate response to the applications, which are filed and no undue delay should be caused by the Employer while considering such cases. The relevant para 9 of the said order passed by the Apex Court is quoted as hereunder:— “9. The relevant para 9 of the said order passed by the Apex Court is quoted as hereunder:— “9. Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to observe that considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, i.e., a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications. We are constrained to direct as above as we have found that in several ‘cases, applications for appointment on compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the concerned High Courts seeking a writ of Mandamus for the consideration of their applications. Even after such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made for compassionate appointment are rejected. After several years or are not considered at all as in the instant case. If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved.” 46. This Court finds that the Apex Court again in the case of Mukesh Kumar, (supra) has again reiterated that the claim of a candidate cannot be denied consideration under the scheme of compassionate appointment only because the person happens to be the son of the second wife and his candidature has to be considered as per the extant policy. The relevant para 11 of the said order is quoted as hereunder:— “11. Given the above, we hold that the issue arising for consideration, in this case, is covered by the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. V.K. Tripathi, and consequently the judgment and order dated 18.01.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna passed in CWJC No. 18153 of 2017 is set aside. As we have held that appellant No. 1, Shri Mukesh Kumar, cannot be denied consideration under the scheme of compassionate appointments only because he is the son of the second wife, there shall be a direction to consider his case as per the extant policy. The Authorities shall be entitled to scrutinize whether the application for compassionate appointment fulfils all other requirements in accordance with the law. The process of consideration of the application shall be completed within a period of three months from today.” 47. This Court finds that recently the Apex Court passed the judgment in the case of State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, (supra), wherein the Apex Court has considered again the scope of compassionate appointment and rational behind compassionate appointment has also been again explained by the Apex Court. The Apex Court has further found that even if there is a policy of grant of compassionate appointment, the applicant has to file an application within reasonable or stipulated time and if such applications are filed after several years, then such applications are not required to be entertained by the Employer. The Apex Court has further found that even if there is a policy of grant of compassionate appointment, the applicant has to file an application within reasonable or stipulated time and if such applications are filed after several years, then such applications are not required to be entertained by the Employer. 48. This Court finds that in the present facts of the case the appellant since had made applications within two month's of death of his Father and as such, as per law laid down by the Apex Court, his case cannot.be ignored for compassionate appointment. 49. The reliance placed by counsel for the respondents Mr. R.A. Katta on the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Ramdev v. State of Rajasthan, (supra), this Court finds that the issue before the Coordinate Bench was in respect of granting compassionate appointment and the appointment was to be offered as per the relevant Compassionate Rules of 1996. The Division Bench considered the Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 and it also found that under relevant service Rules, the person has to posses requisite qualification. 50. We find that Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1996 provides qualification for compassionate appointment and sub-Rule (3) specifically provides that before a dependent is appointed, the Appointing Authority has to satisfy that dependent is otherwise fit for appointment in Government service looking to his/her character and physical fitness and fulfillment of other general conditions prescribed in the concerned service Rules by the State Government. This Court finds that if in the relevant service Rules, there is eligibility prescribed of having not more than two children after cut off date, obviously the Employer shall have every right to consider such clause and in a given case, candidature can be rejected for compassionate appointment. However, in the present case, there is no qualification/eligibility or general condition which has been prescribed, as in the concerned service Rules and as such, this judgment is of little assistance to the counsel for the respondents. 51. This Court finds that the learned Single Judge has also not considered the case of the appellant in a proper manner and as such, this Court allows the appeal filed by the appellant. 52. 51. This Court finds that the learned Single Judge has also not considered the case of the appellant in a proper manner and as such, this Court allows the appeal filed by the appellant. 52. This Court sets aside the impugned order dated 13.03.2018 and order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge and case of the appellant may be considered for a suitable employment as per compassionate Rules, considering the qualification of the appellant and other conditions which the Employer has prescribed in the Compassionate Regulations of 1983. 53. This Court finds that since the claim for compassionate appointment has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, the respondents are directed to comply with this order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 54. Accordingly, the present special appeal stands allowed with the aforesaid directions.