The petitioner’s mother died in harness on 29.1.1989 while working as HSA. Petitioner says that she is a major. Her mother was survived by her husband and another daughter. The petitioner has passed Plus Two Examination. She contends that she is qualified to be appointed as Clerk/Peon/Attender or full time Menial in Aided Schools. According to her, on the basis of her being a dependent of her later mother, who died in harness on 29.1.1989, she submitted an application on 19.8.2002. Since the first respondent informed her that she has to send the application to the second respondent, application was submitted on 19.8.2002 before the second respondent, who is the Manager of the Aided School. By order dated 13.11.2002, her application for compassionate appointment was rejected. She preferred an appeal before the DEO, Mavelikkara. She contends that she had produced the prescribed proforma duly filled in an Income Certificate issued by the Village Officer. It was also accompanied by an Affidavit duly attested by a Notary Public to the effect that the other legal heirs of her deceased mother have no objection to the petitioner being appointed. It is stated that while appeals were pending, the second respondent appointed the third respondent in his School as full time Menial with effect from 2.9.2002. It is her case that despite her above efforts, she could not get a copy of the appointment order. She also sent a representation requesting that the appointment of the third respondent may not be approved. She has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2, the order rejecting her claim. She further prays that this Court may command the first respondent to ensure that the petitioner is appointed and further that there will be a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed under rule 51B of Chapter XIV A KER to any suitable post existing or in an arising vacancy with effect from the date of application, and for a further declaration that the appointment of the third respondent is illegal and ab initio void. She also seeks a declaration that no appointment was liable to be made in the School from the date of Ext.P1 against any suitable post for which the petitioner is qualified. There is a further relief sought in the form of a mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner to any suitable post commensurate with her qualifications.

2. A counter affidavit was filed by respondents 2 and 3. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated that under clause 20 of the Government Order dated 24.5.1999 that application shall be only in the prescribed form. It is stated that the application Ext.P4 is submitted only very late. It is further contended that the letter evidenced by Ext.P1 is not a proper application. A letter issued by the DEO to the Manager wherein the petitioner was informed that the petitioner should send a proper application. Therefore, it is contended that the contention of the petitioner that she had submitted application vide Ext.P1 dated 19.8.2002 is incorrect. It is further stated that, however, an application in the prescribed form was given on 27.11.2002. The application was accompanied by Ext.R2(b) covering letter. It is stated that on receipt of letter dated 19.8.2002, the second respondent had informed the petitioner by Ext.P2 that she was not eligible. It is stated that by the time Ext.P4 was submitted, the third respondent was already appointed in a temporary vacancy as the service of a full time Menial was absolutely necessary for the School on 2.9.2002. It is stated that the appointment of the third respondent was only till 30.12.2002 and Shri K.K. Vasu rejoined duty on 31.12.2002. It is stated that the later decision of this Court in P.S. Deepak v. Secretary, General Education Department (2002 (2) KLJ 79) is what is applicable. It is stated that the conditions mentioned in the said Ruling are not available here. It is further stated that the petitioner’s mother died in 1989, but