JUDGMENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 19.12.2024. (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) whereby his provisional appointment in Border Road Organization has been cancelled on the ground that he was declared permanently unfit being below the physical standards with respect of his height. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner has been issued with the provisional selection letter, the same could not have been recalled or cancelled. It is his contention that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in terms of the scheme of compassionate appointment, thus, the strict height criteria should not have been applied in the case of the petitioner. He further submits that he is the only one in the family to look after himself and his mother and other family members after the sudden death of his father who was the only bread winner, working in Group D post. Thus, it was much necessary to grant compassionate appointment to tide over the immediate financial crisis. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of Union of India submits that the normal procedure for appointment has to be followed in the case of compassionate appointment also. The height which was fixed for the personnel is 157 cms but when the height of the petitioner was measured, it was found to be 153.1 cms. Though, in cases under compassionate appointment, there is condition to relax two cms, then also the petitioner will not qualify the minimum eligibility criteria, thus, his case was rejected. 5. After hearing the parties, I find that it is an admitted fact that the father of the petitioner namely Late Durga Rajak was employed as a washerman under the General Reserve Engineer Force in Border Road Organization. He died in harness on 15.12.2018, leaving behind his family members including this petitioner. As there were immediate crisis in the family, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment which was considered as per the scheme and he was provisionally selected. After provisional selection when he was sent for physical measurement. As his height was measured to be 153.1 cms, his provisional appointment letter was cancelled as he did not meet the standard which was fixed in respect of height which was necessary for the employment. 6. After provisional selection when he was sent for physical measurement. As his height was measured to be 153.1 cms, his provisional appointment letter was cancelled as he did not meet the standard which was fixed in respect of height which was necessary for the employment. 6. Compassionate appointment is granted to the dependent of the deceased so that they can overcome the sudden financial crisis on death of the bread winner. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Parden Oraon, reported in (2021) 16 SCC 384 at paragraph no. 8 has held as under- 8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the family [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] . It was further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over. The compassionate appointment must be backed by rule or scheme. Without a rule or scheme, no compassionate appointment can be granted. Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of SBI v. Raj Kumar, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 at paragraph 8 has held as under- 8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. Without a rule or scheme, no compassionate appointment can be granted. Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of SBI v. Raj Kumar, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 at paragraph 8 has held as under- 8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant. It is settled that compassionate appointment cannot be granted dehors the conditions which has been laid down in the rule. The rule or the scheme has to be strictly followed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 at paragraph no. 15 has held as under- 15. Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognised as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. 7. In the instant case, admittedly there is a rule to grant compassionate appointment. The same has been brought on record by the respondents and has been placed at Annexure D to the counter affidavit. This is an office memorandum dated 16.01.2013 as contained in F. No. 14014/02/2012- Estt.(D). As per the said scheme of compassionate appointment, the petitioner is eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground as he is the dependent of the deceased employee. 8. Clause 5 of the aforesaid rule/scheme prescribes the eligibility. As per the eligibility clause, if the family deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution and the applicant is suitable for appointment, he is eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground. Clause 5 (b) of the eligibility criteria provides that the applicant who is applying for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respect under the provisions of the relevant recruitment rules. The relevant recruitment rules has been brought on record as Annexure-U to the counter affidavit. In the said general rules, the method of physical efficiency test and the physical and medical standards test have been prescribed. 9. The said rules is for recruitment in all posts classified as Group ‘B’ (Non- gazetted) and Group ‘C’ in the GREF (BRO). Be it noted that in this case the petitioner on compassionate ground was provisionally selected in a group C post as now the group C and group D posts have been merged. The physical standards in respect of height is prescribed in Schedule II of the same list. Be it noted that in this case the petitioner on compassionate ground was provisionally selected in a group C post as now the group C and group D posts have been merged. The physical standards in respect of height is prescribed in Schedule II of the same list. As per the guidelines, the residents who are residing in eastern plain of the country i.e. eastern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa and Jharkhand, the minimum prescribed height for them is 157 cms. Admittedly as the petitioner is not of 157 cms, his candidature was cancelled. It is the case of the respondent that since Clause 5 (b) prescribes that the candidate who is seeking compassionate appointment should fulfill all the qualifications and eligibility for the post in all respect under the provisions of the relevant recruitment rules and since this Clause also had to be complied with, and since height of the petitioner is less than 157 cms, he could not be appointed, thus his recommendation has been cancelled. 10. While going through the scheme for compassionate appointment, I find that the Clause 6 deals with exemption and relaxations. Clause 6 A deals with exemptions, which is not applicable in this case. What can be applied is the general clause i.e. Clause 18 of the rules. Clause 18 (a) provides that the appointment on the grounds of compassion should be done in such a way that the person who is to be appointed to the post do have the essential educational qualification and technical qualification and experience required for the post consistent with the requirement of maintenance of efficiency in the administration. Clause 18 (e) provides that request for compassionate appointment consequent on death or retirement on medical grounds of erstwhile Group D staffs may be considered with greater sympathy by applying relaxed standards depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. (Emphasis supplied by me) 18. General (e) Requests for compassionate appointment consequent on death or retirement on medical grounds of erstwhile Group ‘D’ staff may be considered with greater sympathy by applying relaxed standards depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. This Clause is of utmost importance. (Emphasis supplied by me) 18. General (e) Requests for compassionate appointment consequent on death or retirement on medical grounds of erstwhile Group ‘D’ staff may be considered with greater sympathy by applying relaxed standards depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. This Clause is of utmost importance. This provides that if a Group D staff dies in harness, the claim of compassionate appointment of his family members may be considered with greatest sympathy and that too by applying relaxed standards depending on the facts of the case. Thus, individual consideration must be there while considering the case where a Group D staff has died. Sudden death of a Group D staff causes financial instability in the entire family. This must be taken care of sympathetically. This power of relaxations has been given to the authorities in the Rule 18 (e) of the rules which governs grant of compassionate appointment. In this case the father of the petitioner was a washerman which was a group D post, but since the Group D post has been merged with Group C post, naturally the petitioner has to be appointed in the Group C post. He has not been appointed against any technical post. He could be allotted multi-tasking work also. Considering the nature of the work he has to perform, his case should have been considered by giving relaxations by invoking 18 (e) of the General conditions of the compassionate appointment scheme. If his height of 153.1 cms, does not come in the way of performing multi- tasking work, he should have been appointed by showing some sympathy, as a scheme of compassionate appointment and grant of compassionate appointment is nothing but sympathy and compassion to save the family. 11. Considering what has been observed above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 contained in annexure 11 needs to be set aside, thus, the same is quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 4 to take fresh decisions especially considering the plight of the petitioner and the financial crises of the family and also considering the fact that he was having all other requisite qualifications. 12. This writ application stands allowed. The decision should be taken within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and must be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.