The Government Order dated 30-3-1995 did not adhere to the directives given by the Supreme Court in the cases of Auditor General of India and others v. V.G. Anantha Rajeswara Rao and Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, particularly in terms of eligibility for compassionate appointment, nature of the posts to be offered, and the time period within which such appointment can be granted.

Petitioner was granted appointment as Lower Division Typist in the Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Department' Thrissur District under Ext. P5 order dated 18-6-1994 subject to the conditions contained in the relevant Government Orders. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation for granting him a category change as Lower Division Clerk. This request was rejected under Ext. P9 order dated 25-2-1995, which is under challenge in the original petition.

2. Petitioner's father G. Subranmanian Potty died in harness on 23-2-1992 while working as Sales Tax Officer under the service of the 1st respondent. The petitioner thereupon submitted an application to the 1st respondent on 22-5-1992 for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. He had passed B.Sc. Degree examination at the time of application. His request was to appoint him as sales Tax Officer . The representation was returned under Ext. P1 letter pointing out that under G.O. (P) No. 20/92/P and ARD dated 10-4-1992 appointment under dying -in-harness scheme is limited only to lower cadre. The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh application for eligible post. Thereupon the petitioner submitted Ext. P2 representation requesting for appointment as Asst. Sales Tax Officer or as Lower Division Clerk. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Government had taken a decision on his application on 13-5-1993 to appoint him as Lower Division Clerk, but no formal orders were issued. But it is further staled in the original petition that on making enquiries with public Administration department he was informed that only applications received till May, 1990 could be scrutinised so far and that the petitioner has to wait for some more time to get his application considered. It is further alleged that he was advised to seek appointment as Lower Division Typist, in which event, he would be given appointment immediately. Since he was in dire need of an employment to save his family from starvation, petitioner states, that he made a representation dated 27-4-1994 to consider him for appointment as Lower Division Typist. Pursuant thereto Ext. P4 order was issued granting sanction for appointment to the petitioner as L.D. Typist. This was followed by Ext. P5 order of appointment dated 18-6-1994. Pursuant thereto the petitioner joined duty on 14-7-1994 as Lower Division Typist.

3. The petitioner has, therefore, submitted Ext. P6 representation dated 18-11-1994 before the Government requesting to grant hi in a category change as a L.D. Clerk. In the above representation he has referred to a circular dated 30-8-1994, copy of which is produced as Ext. P7. Under the above circular issued by personnel and administrative Reforms Advice - C Department it is directed that the Administrative Departments of the Secretariat will issue orders sanctioning appointment of the dependents of Government servants who dies in harness, whose eligibility for appointment in the categories of L.D. Clerk and peon was decided on or before 30-6-1993 in the department in which the Government servant concerned had worked. On receipt of order of sanction, the appointing authority will issue orders appointing the dependent in an existing vacancy. The restriction in regard to reservation to the extent of 10% of vacancies in an year for compassionate employment as per existing Government Orders would not apply to appointment of dependents in whose case decision was taken on or before 30-6-1993. In respect of applications on which decisions have been taken on 1-7-1993 or later it was provided that those applications could be considered against 10 of vacancies reserved in each year. The petitioners contention is that Government had taken a decision in his case on 13-5-1993 to appoint him as L.D. Clerk and this was communicated to Dying-in-harness Cell. Therefore his appointment need not be restricted to 10% vacancy, on the other hand he should have been appointed as L.D. Clerk in the existing vacancy. He