Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. Petitioner’s father admittedly died on 13.1.2003 and for the first time he moved proper application seeking compassionate appointment on 25.7.2011 after completion of his education upto Graduation. Prior thereto it appears that on 25.6.2007 he moved an application requesting District Basic Education Officer (hereinafter referred to as “DBEO”) that presently he is minor studying in Class-XII and authorities may consider him for granting compassionate appointment on the post of Teacher after he completes his Graduation. This application was a kind of request to DBEO to keep a post reserved till petitioner completes his educational qualifications. This clearly shows that petitioner and his family was not admittedly and immediately facing any financial scarcity or were not in penury.

3. The application of petitioner has been rejected by authority concerned on the ground that it has ben filed after five years. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that statutory provision comtemplates relaxation of period but the same has not been considered.

4. However, in my view the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Repeatedly, it has been held that the purpose and object of compassionate appointment is to enable the members of family of the deceased employee in penury, due to sudden demise of the sole breadwinner, get support and succour to sustain themselves and not to face hardship for their bore sustenance.

6. In Managing Director, MMTC Ltd., New Delhi and another v. Pramoda Dei Alias Nayak, 1997 (11) SCC 390, the Court said:

“As pointed out by this Court, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tied over the sudden financial crises and not to provide employment and that mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate appointment.”

7. In S. Mohan v. Government of Tamil Nadu and another, 1999 (I) LLJ 539, the Supreme Court said:

“The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”

8. In Director of Education (Secondary) and another v. Pushpendra Kumar and others, AIR 1998 SC 2230, the Court said:

“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.”

9. In Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar and others, AIR 2000 SC 2782, it was held:

“compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood”

10. In Punjab Nation Bank and others v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, AIR 2004 SC 4155, the Court said:

“It is to be seen that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement regarding appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis.”

11. An appointment on compassionate basis claimed after a long time has seriously been deprecated by Apex Court in Union of India v. Bhagwan, 1995 (6) SCC 436, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar, (1996) 8 SCC 23. In the later case the Court said :

“compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general rule of open recruit