1. By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.The appellant is aggrieved against the dismissal of his writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 6295 of 2009, wherein the petitioner prayed that he was eligible and entitled to compassionate appointment on Class III post in view of the recommendation made by the recommendatory committee, who has recommended for compassionate appointment of petitioner including other persons on Class III post.

3.The learned Single was of the view that the compassionate appointment is not legally vested right and by which appointment, which has been offered and given and accepted by the writ petitioner, the petitioner can maintain his family and if he wants a particular post of his choice, he has to compete with other candidates applying for the said post and pass through various stages of a proper selection process meant for appointment to that post. The learned Single Judge also observed that the petitioner being merely eligible for the higher post cannot claim the said higher post.

4.It is not in dispute that petitioner was eligible for appointment on Class III post. It is also not in dispute that as per Rule the appointment could have been given to Class III post. It is also not in dispute that the competent committee recommended for appointment of not only the petitioner but for number of others candidates including the petitioner on class III post in the decision taken by the recommendatory committee on 11.03.2008. And other candidates have been given appointment on Class III post but the petitioner alone has been singled out and has been offered appointment on class IV post which the petitioner accepted.It is true that compassionate appointment is not a regular appointment as by this mode one get the appointment in government service without competing with others and because of the such reason compassionate appointment is not a right. However, we are of the considered opinion that a weakest right becomes the strongest, if such right is established and cannot be destroyed arbitrarily. Once a policy has been framed by the State Government itself to give benefit to the persons of a 'Class' and that too on humanitarian ground then that right which has been termed to be as a weakest right cannot be so weak right that it cannot fight against arbitrariness. Therefore, whenever even weakest right is denied arbitrarily, the Court will protect such weak right. Even some concession and some benefit is given under the policy decision of the State Government, the State Government has no right to declare that since this was a decision taken to give relief to class of persons and, therefore, they can play with this policy decision and deny arbitrarily compassionate appointment to the persons who are eligible and at the same time give that benefit to the persons of their own choice. The weak right is also a matter of perception and cannot be Rule of law because once there is a right it is a right and if any strongest right can be destroyed then also that can be done in accordance with law which allows the denial of relief to the persons of such right. The same is the position with the weak right. This is one of the such case where the State Government has shown its total arbitrariness. The State was clearly known to the facts that the petitioner was eligible to be appointed on Class III post and there was no bar against giving this appointment in any of the Rules and not only this but out of the same recommendation several persons have been given appointment on Class III post but the petitioner has been denied even when there was vacancy of Class III post. This is a clear arbitrary act of the respondent-State.

5.Learned counsel for the respondent-State relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao Singh reported in (1994) 6 SCC 560. In the said case, respondent's father died while he was serving as a Sub-Inspector, CID (Special Branch). The responden