Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The writ petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed by him, challenging Ext.P6 order of the Government and seeking consequential relief’s. The brief facts of the case are the following :

2. The 4th respondent's father was a Peon, working in the Modakkallur Aided UP School, managed by the third respondent. He died in harness on 09.09.1988. The Government introduced Rule 51B in Chapter XIVA and Rule 9A in Chapter XXIVA KER, providing for appointment on compassionate grounds, of the dependents of the teaching and non-teaching staff, who died in harness. In this case, Rule 9A of Chapter XXIVA is relevant.

3. Soon after the introduction of the above quoted rule, the 4th respondent moved the then Manager, seeking employment under the Dying-in-harness scheme, by submitting Ext.R4(a) representation dated 02.05.1990. In the said representation, he has stated as follows :

"My father N.K.Appukkuttan Nair, who was working in your school from 1.7.1959 in the post of Peon, died on 09.09.1988. I have the educational qualifications of SSLC and Hindi Bhushan. I am eligible to get appointment as a dependent as per the aforementioned GO. Steps may be taken as per the said order to give me employment under the compassionate appointment scheme as the dependent of my father N.K.Appukkuttan Nair."

The order mentioned in the representation is GO(P)No.55/90/G.Edn. Dated 30.03.1990, as per which the aforementioned rules were introduced in the KER. The then Manager, by Ext.R4(b) communication, replied to his representation thus :

"Your representation dated 2nd May 1990 has been received. The post of Hindi Teacher, which is appropriate to your educational qualification, is at present, not available in the School. You will be considered for appointment, as and when a vacancy arises in the said post in future."

The 4th respondent, again submitted Ext.R4(c) representation dated 16.05.1997, praying that steps may be taken to appoint him in the vacancy of Full Time Junior Hindi Teacher, which may arise in 2002. Later, he submitted Ext.R4(d) application dated 25.5.2002 for appointment in the prescribed format. But, ignoring his claim, the appellant/writ petitioner was appointed in that vacancy. The 4th respondent raised the matter before the Assistant Educational Officer. The AEO upheld the claim of the 4th respondent. The Manager challenged that order before the Government in revision. The Government upheld the order of the AEO. Later, as per the direction of this Court, the Government reconsidered the matter and again, affirmed the claim of the 4th respondent for appointment and rejected the claim of the appellant for approval of his appointment, by Ext.P6 order. Hence the Writ Petition, challenging Ext.P6.

4. As per the Judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the Manager and the appellant that the 4th respondent did not apply in time and therefore, he was ineligible for appointment. The contentions of the Manager that no such application as Ext.R4(a) was submitted by the 4th respondent and that the reply Ext.R4(b) was cooked up later, were also repelled. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Writ Appeal is filed.

5. We heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri.K.R.B.Kaimal, appearing for the appellant and also the learned counsel Sri.Mohana Kannan, appearing for the 4th respondent. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that Ext.R4(a) cannot be treated as a valid application and therefore, no application was submitted in time. Ext.R4(d) application in the prescribed format was submitted only in 2002, i.e., after the lapse of more than 13 years. Therefore, the Government should not have upheld the claim of the 4th respondent. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, is evolved to give immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee and it is not meant as a reservation of posts in favour