JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Appeal assails the Order, dated 10.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19214 of 2014, whereby the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1 herein was allowed, directing the appellants herein to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 2. Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Srinivas Emani, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record. Factual Matrix (in brief) 3. The factual background, necessary for adjudication of this appeal, is as follows: i) Respondent No.1 herein/writ petitioner (hereafter "the petitioner") claims to have applied for compassionate employment within one year of her husband's death on 02.04.2011, as required by the governing scheme under G.O.Ms.No.687. ii) It is the case of the appellant-University that the petitioner's first valid application was received on 20.03.2013, beyond the one-year limit, which was duly rejected by a speaking order dated 31.05.2014. The petitioner's subsequent claims of having applied earlier on 15.08.2011 and 20.09.2011 is an afterthought. Further, the forensic examination of the dispatch register reveals that the said entries were subsequently interpolated, thereby demonstrating that the petitioner’s claim is a fabricated attempt to create a false factual foundation. iii) It is the case of the petitioner that she submitted her application through the proper channel i.e., the Senior Scientist & Head, JVRHRS, Malyala on 20.09.2011, within six months of her husband's death. The delay of over three years in forwarding this application to the Head Office was the fault of the authorities, for which she should not be penalized. The petitioner claims that her stand is supported by a subsequent letter from the University dated 05.12.2020, which corroborates her claim. iv) The learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition held that the delay of more than three years in forwarding the petitioner’s application was entirely attributable to the respondents and could not be a ground to deny her claim; that the petitioner could not be penalized for the administrative lapse committed by the authorities in processing her application; that the University’s subsequent communication dated 05.12.2020 corroborated the petitioner’s assertion regarding timely submission of her application; that the petitioner had indeed submitted her application within the prescribed period. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants raised the following contentions: 4.1 That the very object of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief for a family in sudden crisis. An application made two years after the death of the employee on 20.03.2013, completely defeats this object and is time-barred as per the explicit one-year limit under the G.O.Ms.No.687, which governs the scheme. 4.2 That the alleged application dated 20.09.2011 was set up for the first time in the reply affidavit and finds no mention in the original Writ Petition. It is asserted that the said document is fabricated, as the dispatch register contains an interpolated entry at S.No.100-A and the endorsement on the alleged application bears a date of 20.09.2014, not 2011, indicating it was created later. 4.3 That both the Writ Petition and the petitioner’s first affidavit refer only to the representations dated 15.08.2011 and in the year 2012, and there is no mention whatsoever of any application dated 20.09.2011, and failure to mention the crucial 20.09.2011 application initially is fatal to her case. 4.4 That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219 , has held that directing compassionate appointment after the lapse of a long period defeats the very object of the scheme. In the present matter, nearly fourteen years have passed since the employee’s death in 2011, and even on the petitioner’s own showing, more than eleven years have elapsed since the purported application in 2013. Thus, any financial crisis the family may have faced has long since dissipated, and therefore no claim for compassionate appointment can survive. 4.5 That the petitioner did not challenge the rejection order dated 31.05.2014 until by a belated amendment in 2023. This demonstrates acquiescence and a lack of a timely, valid cause of action. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, contending that it does not suffer from any infirmity either in law or on facts. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record and applied the settled legal principles, and therefore, the order of learned Single Judge warrants no interference in this appeal. 6. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. Analysis and Reasons: 7. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record and applied the settled legal principles, and therefore, the order of learned Single Judge warrants no interference in this appeal. 6. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. Analysis and Reasons: 7. After a thorough consideration of the pleadings, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the submissions advanced, we find substantial force in the contentions raised by the appellants. 8. In the present case, the employee died on 02.04.2011 and, even assuming the respondent’s version to be correct, the purported application is said to have been made on 20.09.2011. The impugned direction for compassionate appointment, however, has been issued only on 10.04.2025. A direction for appointment nearly fourteen years after the death of the employee, and more than a decade after the initiation of proceedings, defeats the very object and rationale of the compassionate appointment scheme. The ‘sudden crisis’ that informs the very basis of the scheme is inherently temporary and cannot be stretched into a continuing claim. As held in Debabrata Tiwari’ s case (supra 1), granting compassionate appointment after such an inordinate delay treats it as a matter of inheritance, which it is never intended to be, as the sense of immediate relief stands irretrievably lost. 9. The Apex Court in Debabrata Tiwari’ s case (supra 1), while reiterating the view expressed in Malaya Nanda Shetty v. State of Orissa , AIR 2022 SC 2836 has observed, as to in which manner the authorities must consider and decide applications for appointment on compassionate grounds, as under: 14. 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. 16. 16. 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. 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. (Emphasis supplied) 10. It is settled law that compassionate appointment is neither a vested right nor an alternative mode of public employment; it constitutes a narrowly carved exception to the constitutional guarantees of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, justified only by the sudden financial distress befalling a family upon the demise of its sole breadwinner. Its limited object is to provide immediate relief to enable the family to overcome the abrupt financial crisis. The operative requirement of the scheme is, therefore, one of immediacy. 11. It is pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge's reliance on the purported application dated 20.09.2011 is a grave error, for the following reasons: i. Firstly, the original Writ Petition and the accompanying affidavit filed in 2014 did not make any reference whatsoever to such an application; it is introduced for the first time only in a reply affidavit filed much later, clearly suggesting an afterthought devised to cure a fatal lacuna in the respondent’s case. ii. Secondly, the appellants have produced the relevant pages of the Dispatch Register of JVRHRS, Malyal, which reveal an interpolation between Serial Nos. 100 and 101, through the insertion of ‘S.No.100-A’ purportedly pertaining to the respondent-petitioner’s application. The contemporaneous entries do not contain any such dispatch, thereby indicating an attempt to create a false trail of official movement. iii. ii. Secondly, the appellants have produced the relevant pages of the Dispatch Register of JVRHRS, Malyal, which reveal an interpolation between Serial Nos. 100 and 101, through the insertion of ‘S.No.100-A’ purportedly pertaining to the respondent-petitioner’s application. The contemporaneous entries do not contain any such dispatch, thereby indicating an attempt to create a false trail of official movement. iii. Thirdly, the endorsement on the bottom of the alleged application, though dated 20.09.2011, bears the signature dated 20.09.2014, which clearly demonstrates that the document, in its present form, was either created or altered in 2014 and not on the date it purports to bear. These discrepancies, when viewed collectively, undermine the very foundation of the respondent-writ petitioner’s claim and disclose a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court. 12. It is to be noted that in the light of the overwhelming indicators of fabrication, the learned Single Judge was not justified in placing reliance on the impugned document. The communication dated 05.12.2020, being an internal correspondence unsupported by any contemporaneous file or underlying material, cannot revive a claim that rests upon a document whose authenticity remains questionable. The contemporaneous entries in the Dispatch Register, which form part of the official record, must necessarily prevail over a self-serving letter issued nearly a decade thereafter. 13. It is also to be noted that the only application that finds legitimate and consistent reflection in the records of the University is the one received on 20.03.2013. This application was ex facie beyond the one-year period prescribed under the scheme, and the appellant-University rightly rejected it by a reasoned order dated 31.05.2014. Significantly, the petitioner did not assail this rejection order in the original Writ Petition, which is a material omission. The belated attempt to amend the prayer in 2023 cannot cure the foundational defect of the claim being time-barred. 14. Further, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge did not correctly apply the principles laid down in Debabrata Tiwari’ s case (supra 1). The learned Single Judge’s observation that the authorities ought to have examined the retired official who signed the 2020 communication is misconceived, as the burden of proof rested upon the petitioner to establish the foundational fact that she had submitted her application within the prescribed time, which was never discharged. On the contrary, the very document relied upon by her stands tainted with serious doubt. On the contrary, the very document relied upon by her stands tainted with serious doubt. In such circumstances, no adverse inference could have been drawn against the authorities for not examining the retired official. Conclusion 15. For the foregoing reasons and in the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that: i. The respondent-writ petitioner has failed to establish that she submitted any application for compassionate appointment within one year of her husband’s death in 2011. ii. The document purportedly bearing the date 20.09.2011 is unreliable and exhibits clear indications of fabrication. iii. The only authenticated application is the one received by the University on 20.03.2013, which was indisputably beyond the prescribed period and was, therefore, rightly rejected. iv. A direction to grant compassionate appointment in 2025, in respect of a death that occurred in 2011, runs contrary to the very object of the scheme and to the law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Debabrata Tiwari’ case (supra 1). 16. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19214 of 2014 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.