THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26239 of 2000 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the application dated 20.02.1999 of the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Record Assistant in St. Anthony High School, the 4th respondent herein, on 17.12.1990. Thereafter, the 4th respondent submitted proposals to the 3rd respondent, for approval of the appointment of the husband of the petitioner, but the same was not considered. Aggrieved by such action of the respondent authorities, the husband of the petitioner filed W.P.No.2935 of 1992, which was disposed of on 31.12.1996, directing the Government to constitute a Committee of officials either region wise or state wise to scrutinize the suitability of the candidates to be continued and complete the process of scrutiny within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter, when the matter with regard to the constitution of the Committee, as directed in W.P.No.2935 of 1992, was pending, unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died on 31.05.1997 and subsequent thereto, a Committee was constituted and, ultimately, the case of the husband of the petitioner was rejected on 25.09.1997, for the reason that he died on 31.05.1997 itself. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent authorities on 23.12.1997, seeking compassionate appointment to any suitable post in the 4th respondent School, but the same is not acted upon. Hence, this writ petition. Respondents 1 to 3 filed a counter stating that the proposal for approval of appointment of the husband of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that the Management has not followed Rule 15 of G.O.Ms.No.524 Education, dated 20.12.1988, and that the husband of the petitioner was not sponsored by Employment Exchange as stipulated in Rule 15(2) of the said G.O. It is also stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to putforth her claim for appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.568 dated 01.07.1982, since the appointment of her husband in Grant-in-aid post was not approved by the competent authority, as per Rule 15(4) of G.O.Ms.No.524, dated 20.12.1988. It is further stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.568, dated 01.07.1982, read with Govt. Memo No.404 (H1) 83-1, dated 22.10.1983, the dependent of the deceased employee of Aided School is eligible for appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that nothing prevented the Committee, constituted pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.2935 of 1992, from considering regularization of the services of the husband of the petitioner, since the required information was on record, which forms the basis for such consideration, but instead of doing that, the respondent authorities have simply rejected the case of the husband of the petitioner on the ground that he expired on 31.05.1997. The learned counsel further submits that had the Committee considered the case of the husband of the petitioner, for regularization of his services, on the basis of the record, the petitioner would have been entitled for compassionate appointment, if not for any other monetary benefits, but such a course was not adopted by the Committee. He further submits that in number of cases, the respondent authorities have regularized many employees, without examining as to their qualifications and the method of their appointments, therefore, it must be deemed that the services of the husband of the petitioner were approved and the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment in the 4th respondent School. Learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the respondents reiterated the stand taken by respondents 1 to 3 in their counter affidavit. The facts are not in dispute. The only ground on which the Committee rejected the case of the husband of the petitioner was that he died on 31.05.1997 i.e., much prior to the consideration of his case, thus making his candidature infructuous. While admitting the writ petition on 01.08.2002, an interim order was passed directing the respondents not to make any appointment to the vacancy in the post of Record Assistant in the 4th respondent School, and the said interim order is still subsisting. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on merits, the respondents 2 to 4 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner, for appointment against the vacancy reserved in terms of the interim order dated 01.08.2002 passed by this Court, on sympathetic grounds treating that the husband of the petitioner was appointed on regular basis for the purpose of providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the 4th respondent school. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 29.11.2010 v v