JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer: 1. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3414 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the claim of the writ petitioner, for his appointment in Class-III post on compassionate ground, has been denied. Facts: 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under: The petitioner/appellant after death of her father filed representation for compassionate appointment and committee found that petitioner has required qualification for Class-III post but Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Latehar disclosed before the committee that Class-III post is not available hence committee recommended in Class IV post and petitioner/appellant appointed on Class-IV post though she has required qualification for Class-III post. When the Class-III post was available, the petitioner appellant filed her representation to change Class-IV post to Class-III. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No. 3414 of 2018 which has been dismissed against which the present appeal has been filed. 3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the father of the petitioner died in harness. The writ petitioner has made application for consideration of her appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner was considered and she has been appointed in Class-IV post. The petitioner has accepted the appointment and joined her duty. The petitioner subsequent to the joining has made representation that she ought to have been appointed in Class III post since she was eligible during the relevant time to hold the Class III post. The aforesaid claim has not been considered even in spite of filing of the representation. The writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3414 of 2018 was filed wherein the learned Single Judge, on consideration of the fact that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the same can only be given for the purpose of sustenance of the dependents of the deceased employee, on account of death in harness of the concerned public servant. 4. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration that during the relevant time, there was no vacancy in Class III post, as per the ground taken by the State in the counter affidavit. 5. 4. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration that during the relevant time, there was no vacancy in Class III post, as per the ground taken by the State in the counter affidavit. 5. The learned Single Judge, based upon the aforesaid ground, distinguishing the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Imtiaz Ahmad Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in 2015 (2) JLJR 195 and The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and Ors. Vs. Vinay Kumar, reported in 2015 (2) JLJR 62 , has dismissed the writ petition against which the present appeal has been filed. Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner: 6. Mr. Rabindra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner, in assailing the impugned judgment, has taken the following grounds : (i) The writ petitioner even though was eligible to hold the post of Class III, but in a highly arbitrary and illegal manner, the writ petitioner was appointed in Class IV post. It has been submitted that the writ petitioner was having no option but to accept the offer of appointment, considering the financial crisis which the entire family, the dependents, of the deceased employee was facing. (ii) The ground has been raised that the writ petitioner was eligible to hold the post of Class III but without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, such claim has been denied and in spite of consideration of the case for appointment in Class III, the writ petitioner was appointed in Class IV post. (iii) The learned Single Judge without appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the matter, in right perspective, has dismissed the writ petition, therefore, the present appeal. Arguments on behalf of the Respondents: 7. Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, learned counsel appearing for the State, while defending the impugned judgment, has taken the following grounds : (i) It has been contended that the appointment on compassionate ground is not having any statutory or any fundamental right of the dependents of the deceased employee, rather, the same is to be provided on compassion for the purpose of sustenance of the dependents of the deceased employee. (ii) The contention has been raised that the appointment on compassionate ground since is in the teeth of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as such the writ petitioner cannot claim appointment according to the suitability and choice. The question of consideration of the Class III post was not there at the relevant time when the case of the writ petitioner was under consideration before the District Compassionate Committee due to non-availability of the post. 8. The learned Single Judge, on the consideration of the aforesaid reasons, since, has dismissed the writ petition, hence, the same suffers from no error. Analysis: 9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 10. The issue which requires consideration are as follows : (i) Whether the petitioner can raise the claim for her appointment according to her eligibility and suitability in the Class-III post on compassionate ground. (ii) Whether appointment on compassionate ground if once consummated, is it available for the concerned dependent to raise the claim of development of status by seeking appointment in the higher grade? 11. Both issues since are inter-linked and as such, are being taken up together. 12. Before considering the aforesaid issues, the issue which has been taken into consideration in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground by the Hon’ble Apex Court needs to be referred herein. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 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 the judgment referred hereinabove, 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. From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment referred hereinabove, 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. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also considered the issue that once the appointment on compassionate ground has already been consummated by accepting the offer of appointment in such circumstances, it is not available for the dependent of the deceased employee to raise the claim for the purpose of getting appointment in the higher grade. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Umrao Singh, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 560 , wherein at paragraph-8 it has been held, which reads hereunder as : “8. Admittedly, the respondent’s father died in harness while working as Sub-Inspector, CID (Special Branch) on 16-3-1988. The respondent filed an application on 8-4-1988 for his appointment on compassionate ground as Sub-Inspector or LDC according to the availability of vacancy. On a consideration of his plea, he was appointed to the post of LDC by order dated 14-12-1989. He accepted the appointment as LDC. Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of “endless compassion’. Eligibility to be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police is one thing, the process of selection is yet another thing. He accepted the appointment as LDC. Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of “endless compassion’. Eligibility to be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police is one thing, the process of selection is yet another thing. Merely because of the so-called eligibility, the learned Single Judge of the High Court was persuaded to the view that direction be issued under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules which has no application to the facts of this case.” 14. This Court after having discussed the aforesaid judgment also needs to refer herein the scheme under which the consideration is to be made of appointment on compassionate ground. The State of Jharkhand was having with the scheme under the circular issued on 5th October, 1991 carving out the scheme to provide appointment on compassionate ground. The same was issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar but followed by the State of Jharkhand till framing of Rule in 2015. 15. It is evident from the aforesaid schemes and the rules that the appointment on compassionate ground is to be given in case of the death of the employee in harness subject to availability of vacancy and eligibility if the dependent is found to be eligible otherwise. 16. In the circular, it has been stipulated that certain posts have been earmarked for appointment on compassionate ground so far as the Class III grade/posts are concerned, i.e., in the pay scale of 1900. Certain vacancies have also been earmarked for consideration of appointment in Class III or Class IV post subject to availability of the vacancies in the respective category/grade. 17. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, the father of the writ petitioner had died in harness and thereafter the writ petitioner has made an application for her appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the writ petitioner was referred to the District Compassionate Committee wherein she was recommended for appointment in Class IV post. The said recommendation was acted upon by issuance of the offer of appointment. The writ petitioner has accepted, joined and started discharging her duty. The writ petitioner, in course of discharging her duty, has made a representation for her appointment in Class-III instead of Class-IV post. The said claim has been rejected, therefore, the present appeal. 18. The said recommendation was acted upon by issuance of the offer of appointment. The writ petitioner has accepted, joined and started discharging her duty. The writ petitioner, in course of discharging her duty, has made a representation for her appointment in Class-III instead of Class-IV post. The said claim has been rejected, therefore, the present appeal. 18. The ground which has been taken that the writ petitioner is eligible to be appointed as Class-III grade and as such her name ought to have been recommended for her appointment in Class III post but such submission is having no foundation in view of the settled position of law so far as the appointment on compassionate ground is concerned that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right, rather, the same since is to be provided on compassion, subject availability of vacancy, the appointment is to be made in order to achieve the object and intent of the scheme and rule enacted for the aforesaid purpose. 19. Herein, the admitted case is that during the relevant time, there was no vacancy in the Class III post, since the aforesaid specific stand was taken by the State in the counter affidavit. The question is that when the post itself was not available in Class III post for fulfilling amongst the candidates who had made application for consideration of their candidature for appointment on compassionate ground. 20. The second reason is that the writ petitioner has joined and thereby she has consummated the aforesaid privilege by getting the appointment and discharging her duty and thereafter she has made an application for her appointment on Class III post. The post since was not available said to be in Class III, then where is the question for consideration of the appointment in Class III post. 21. The aforesaid fact has been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. Further, although the learned Single Judge has not gone into the principle of appointment in being consummated but that is the law, as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan V. Umrao Singh (supra) and hence the same is also considered on that angle. 22. Further, although the learned Single Judge has not gone into the principle of appointment in being consummated but that is the law, as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan V. Umrao Singh (supra) and hence the same is also considered on that angle. 22. Herein also, the admitted fact is that the writ petitioner had accepted the offer of appointment and started discharging her duty in Class IV post and therefore, the appointment having been consummated by her and hence it is not available for the writ petitioner to claim the appointment in Class III post otherwise the appointment on compassionate ground will be on the wish of the concerned dependent of the deceased employee which is not available to be raised reason being that appointment on compassionate ground being on compassion, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Conclusion: 23. The learned Single Judge has considered while dismissing the writ petition, the two judgments which have been relied upon on behalf of the writ petitioner, the one is passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench in the case of The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and Ors. Vs. Vinay Kumar (supra). The law is well-settled that the applicability of judgment is to be tested on the basis of the facts and circumstances involved in each and every case individually. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 75 , paragraph 47 of which reads as under : “47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. “The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.”” 24. This Court has gone through the factual aspect of the judgment rendered in The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and Ors. Vs. “The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.”” 24. This Court has gone through the factual aspect of the judgment rendered in The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and Ors. Vs. Vinay Kumar (supra) and found therefrom, as per Paragraph-7 thereof that the writ petitioner of said case was appointed in Class IV post while the other similarly situated persons had been considered for appointment in Class III post and in that pretext, the writ petition was filed raising the issue of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 25. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the aforesaid factual difference. The learned Single Judge since has also considered the judgment passed in the case of Md. Imtiaz Ahmad Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra) by a learned Single Judge of this Court (presided by Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) but while going through the aforesaid fact, the factual aspect is quite different since in the aforesaid case, the factual aspect was that the case of the writ petitioner was recommended for appointment on the post of Class III on the basis of his eligibility but appointed in Class IV post. 26. But herein that is not the case of the writ petitioner that she has been recommended in Class III, rather, her case is of improving from Class IV to Class III on the basis of consideration made by the District Compassionate Committee. 27. This Court based upon the aforesaid discussion, factual aspect and the established legal position, is of the view that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, which cannot be said to suffer from an error. 28. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed. 29. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.