(1) THE respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court stating that her representation to provide Class-IV appointment to her, had not been appropriately considered but rejected. The High Court without looking to the facts arising in the case directed that she be appointed by providing suitable job within a period of three months from the date of the order and if there is no post, to create a post and make such appointment.

(2) WE are constrained to state that the order made by the High Court is somewhat extraordinary. In the normal course when there is a ban on the appointments to be made, question of directing the respondent to create a post and appoint the petitioner before the High Court was totally unwarranted. However, we think that in view of the fact that the respondents husband having died in harness who was working as a conductor in the establishment of the appellant it is proper that her case should be considered in accordance with the scheme that is framed for making appointment on compassionate grounds. The representation made by the respondent should not have been rejected but should have i considered the same in accordance with the scheme framed f