Abdul Gafoor, J.

An aided school manager is the appellant in both these writ appeals. He is the Manager of St. Ignatius High School, Kanjiramattom. The 6th respondent filed Ext.R6(a) application before the appellant for appointment as a teacher in the school managed by him on compassionate ground invoking Rule 51B Chapter XIV-A KER, which reads as follows:

“The Manager shall give employment to a dependent of an aided school teacher dying in harness. Government orders relating to employment assistance to the dependents of Government servants dying in harness shall mutates mutandis, apply in the matter of such appointments.”

This application was made on 25.7.1990 consequent on death of her mother, A.L. Rosy on 21.4.1990 who was a teacher in the school managed by the appellant. The appellant manager did not consider this request. Finally, the 6th respondent took up the matter before the District Educational Officer who considered her claim with due advertence to the objections of the manager as contained in Ext.P1 and passed Ext.P2 order with direction to the manager “to give employment to the petitioner (6th respondent) in the next arising vacancy in his school, after obtaining relinquishment letters of senior preferential claimants.” This was assailed by the Manager before Government as is revealed by Ex.P3 revision petition. It was disposed of as per Ext.P4 with a direction to the manager “to appoint Smt. Meena K. John (the 6th respondent) with immediate effect, since she is eligible for appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A KER”. This was under challenge in O.P.No.22066/2001.

2. In the meantime, as Ext.P2 was not implemented, she complained to the Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam. There upon the Deputy Director of Education passed Ext.P1 in O.P.No.5502/02 with a further direction to the Manager to consider her appointment particularly considering the fact that she was eligible for appointment at the time when she applied. This was impugned by the Manager before the Director of Public Instruction and the Director of Public Instruction disposed of that matter as per Ext.P3 marked in O.P.No.5502/2002 re-enforcing the direction to the manager “to obey the departmental direction by appointing Smt. Meena K. John under the management.” The Government had also in the meantime issued a clarification that married son/married daughter shall also be considered under compassionate employment scheme if they are otherwise eligible, as per Ext.P4 marked in O.P.No.5502/02. It is in the above circumstances the Manager again filed O.P.No.5502/2002 impugning Exts.P1, P3 and P4. Both these Original Petitions were dismissed as per the judgment impugned in these two writ appeals by a common judgment. Therefore, this writ appeals at the instance of the appellant/petitioner manager.

3. The main contention urged before the authorities and before us is that the 6th respondent who claimed compassionate appointment was not at all a dependent of the teacher who died in harness, because she got married when her claim was considered on 16.6.1991. Admittedly and going by Ext.R1(a) application this was far later than she urged her claim for appointment under Rule 51B. Either Rule 51B or the Government orders referred to in Rule 51B does not make a married daughter disentitled to such appointment.

4. The further contention urged was that the family of the applicant was in sound financial situation. Therefore, she did not deserve a compassionate appointment under Rule 51B read with Government orders mentioned therein. Reiterating this contention it is pointed out that clause 15 of GO (P)No.34/87/P & ARD dated 17.12.1987, the relevant Govt. order applicable at the relevant point of time as referred to in Rule 51-B, fixed an income limit in order to make one eligible for compassionate appointment. Special reference is made to clause 15 therein, which reads as under.

“15.(i) The maximum income of the family of a Government Servant who died in har