As per case facts, the petitioner sought compassionate appointment following the demise of her brother and his wife in an accident, leaving a minor child. Her initial application was rejected ... as existing rules did not cover a deceased employee's sister for such appointments. After the petitioner became the minor's certified guardian, the government amended the rules to include certified guardians and also revised the application timelines. Despite these changes and a subsequent application, the Tribunal rejected her claim, citing the original application date and the delay in the new application under the amended timeline. The question arose whether eligibility for compassionate appointment should be determined by rules at the time of the employee's death or at the time of application consideration, particularly concerning amended rules that expand eligibility but impose new timelines. Finally, the Court, relying on Apex Court precedents, affirmed that eligibility is judged by the rules prevailing at the time of application consideration. However, it concluded that the petitioner's application, filed beyond the specified timeline in the amended rules, could not be accepted, emphasizing that compassionate appointment is an exception and adherence to legal provisions is paramount, regardless of the unique circumstances.