JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on account of the death of the petitioner’s father, who was serving as Teacher Grade-III with the respondents. The petitioner contends that the family suffered financial hardship upon the demise of the deceased employee and that the denial of compassionate appointment is arbitrary and unjust.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Late Shri Chhail Bihari Meena, father of the petitioner was working on the substantive post of Teacher Grade-III in Government Primary School, Chodhriya District Jaisalmer. However, he expired on 18.04.2013 while in service. At the time of death of father of the petitioner, he was aged about 13 years only.

3. After death of petitioner's father, vide order dated 16.06.2014, the mother of the petitioner (widow of deceased employee) was offered appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Class IV Employee by the respondents, but she did not join her duties.

4. After attaining the age of majority, the petitioner submitted application dated 01.07.2022 through his mother seeking appointment on compassionate ground along with all other documents. The said application was forwarded vide letter dated 07.12.2022 by the Divisional Joint Director (School Education) to the Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. However, claim of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground was dismissed by the respondents vide orders dated 26.03.2024 and 30.04.2024. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing instant writ petition. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in declining benefit of appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner is unjustified, unwarranted and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when the compassionate appointment rules entitles the petitioner for compassionate appointment for saving the family of deceased employee from starvation, there is no justification in not providing the same to the petitioner, dependent of the deceased employee. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for allowing the writ petition as also issuance of direction to the respondents for grant of appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the material on record.

6. Perusal of the material on record would reveal that claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined by the respondents for the reason that the claim of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground was hopelessly barred by time.

7. The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, disclose that the deceased employee died in harness on 18.04.2013 several years prior to the filing of the present writ petition. It is an admitted position that no immediate claim for compassionate appointment was pursued by the petitioner and the present writ petition has been instituted after a substantial and unexplained lapse of time.

8. The central issue that arises for consideration is whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be sustained after a long and unexplained delay and whether such a claim survives the settled legal principles governing compassionate appointment under public service jurisprudence.

9. At the outset, it must be reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, nor an alternative mode of recruitment. It constitutes a narrowly carved exception to the general rule of public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, intended solely to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee who dies in harness, leaving the family in sudden penury. The underlying purpose is to mitigate an unforeseen financial crisis and to ensure that the family is not