1. - By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order 30.4.2003 (Annex.13), by which his services have been terminated.

2. Petitioner's father late Shri P.R. Upadhaya died while is service on 29.4.94. The widow of the deceased employee moved an application on 23.6.94 for providing compassionate employment to the petitioner on attaining majority. Vide order dated 18.1.2000, petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk. Vide Annx. 10 dated 28/29.4.03, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why his services should to be terminated as the appointment given to him on compassionate ground on 17.1.2000 was in violation of rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Department of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short, "the Rules, 1996"). Petitioner filed the reply Annx. 11 on 30.4.2003. Vide impugned order Annx. 13 dated 30.4.2003, the services of the petitioner have been terminated. Hence this writ petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. It is settled legal proposition that employment on compassionate ground is not a vested right as has repeatedly been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In fact, every appointment in public office must be made in strict adherence to the mandatory requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception to provide employment on compassionate ground has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the grieved family which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the family of the source of livelihood. The Competent Authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provisions of employment the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. Thus, the consistent view taken by the Court had been that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, not being the vested right.

5. In Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Hakim Singh, 1998(1) SCT 511 (SC) : JT 1997(8) SC 332, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the object of providing for compassionate employment is only to relieve the family from financial hardship, therefore, an ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment.

6. Similarly, in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar & Anrs., 1996(2) SCT 778 (SC) : (1996)8 SCC 23, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the applicants involved therein to apply for employment on compassionate ground "by giving full details of the family circumstances and the economic conditions."

7. In Director of Education (Secondary) & Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar & ors., 1998(2) SCT 791 (SC) : (1998)5 SCC 192, the Apex Court has observed that the object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of the humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to meet both the ends, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased Government employee who may be eligible for such appointment.

8. A Division Bench of this Court in Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & ors., 1998(4) SCT 221 (Raj.) : 1998(1) RLW 666, while dealing with the issue, observed that the object and purpose of providing the employment on compassionate ground is to redeem the family which has lost its bread-earner and not to create any new mode of recruitment for dependent of the Government servant and it cannot be claimed as a vested right.

9. In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 20