IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 40 of 2011 Date of Decision : 20.9.2011. Sanjay Kumar ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. R. K Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G and Mr. J.K Verma, Dy. A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition has been filed mainly with the following prayers:- “(i). That the decision of the Government in rejecting the claim of the applicant for his appointment as Clerk on Compassionate grounds may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary, contrary, unconstitutional and unsustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly the letter dated 28.12.2005 (Annexure A-6) issued by the respondent No.1 may kindly be quashed. (ii). That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider and appoint the applicant as Clerk on Compassionate ground w.e.f the date, the applicant applied for his appointment as Clerk on compassionate grounds along with all consequential benefits..” 2. According to the petitioner, when he was offered an appointment on compassionate grounds as Class IV, he was - 2 - otherwise eligible to be appointed in to Class-III against a regular vacancy. It is now settled law that in case there is a vacancy at the time of offer of appointment on compassionate grounds in Class-III and in case the applicant otherwise is qualified, the appointment should be offered in the lowest rank of Class-III. In other words, the appointment in terms of the policy on compassionate grounds need not necessarily be always to Class-IV only. It is seen that the petitioner had made a representation and the same is rejected as per Annexure A-6 by a laconic order, which reads as follows: “I am directed to refer to your letter No. P-II(3) Compassionate/Sanjay/05-11167-B dated 5.7.2005 and letter No. 37884 dated 23.8.2005 on the subject cited above and to say that the matter was considered and rejected by the Government.” 3. Since the order does not give any reason for consideration on the representation filed by the petitioner, the same is quashed with a direction to the first respondent to consider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and order on merits shall be passed in the light of this judgment, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 4. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. September 20,2011 (Justice Sanjay Karol), (rana/priti) Judge.