By the Court.—We have heard Sri Krishna Ji Khare, learned counsel for the appellant in Special Apepal No. 896 of 2010. Sri R.N. Singh Senior Advocate alongwith Sri K.S. Kushwaha appears for the appellant in Special Appeal No. 750 of 2010. Sri R.P. Pandey appears for respondent No. 1. Learned standing counsel appears for respondent Nos. 2 to 6. No one appears for respondent No. 7 - Committee of Management.

2. The Special Appeal No. 896 of 2010, has been filed against the judgement dated 26.4.2010, by which the writ petition filed by Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, as a Member of the Committee of Management, and complainant against the compassionate appointment of Manish Kumar Rai (appellant), for quashing the order of Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow dated 29.10.2009, whereby he had held that the appellant was entitled to compassionate appointment, was allowed, and while setting aside the order, the Director of Education (Basic) was directed to pay Rs. 50.000/- as cost - both to Sri Vivek Kumar (petitioner-respondent No. 1) and Manish Kumar Rai (appellant), who was arrayed as respondent No. 7 in the writ petition. The amount was directed to be paid by the Director by way of bank draft drawn from the salary account, failing which the Secretary was directed to recover the amount from the salary account of the Director, and transmit the same to the petitioner and respondent No. 7.

3. The Director of Education (Basic), U.P. Lucknow has also filed a Special Appeal No. 750 of 2010, which has been connected to this Special Appeal, against the award of costs. He has relied upon orders passed by the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court has directed that exemplary costs should not be imposed normally; it should be sparingly imposed, to advance justice, and not for threatening.

In the present case, the dispute arose out of the complaint made by Sri Vivek Kumar - the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 17864 of 2010, to the Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow against the appointment of Sri Manish Kumar (respondent No. 7 in the writ petition and appellant in Special Appeal No. 896 of 2010) on the death of his father on 16.7.2005, serving as a teacher in Netaji Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Khukundawa, Kopaganj, District Mau, which was an unaided institution.

4. The date on which Sri Manish Kumar made an application for compassionate appointment has not been brought on record. His father had died on 16.7.2005. He was considered for appointment by the Regional Level Committee on 29.5.2007, and was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 25.6.2007. The institution was brought on the grant-in-aid list on 2.12.2006.

5. The substance of the complaint was that the dependent of a teacher, serving in an unaided institution, could not be given compassionate appointment in an aided institution. By the time when the application for compassionate appointment of Sri Manish Kumar was to be considered, the institution has been brought on the grant-in-list, and therefore, he could not be given appointment on compassionate ground in the aided institution.

6. The Director of Basic Education, U.P in his order dated 29.10.2009 found that Sri Manish Kumar was entitled to compassionate appointment, and issued directions for payment of salary.

7. Learned Single Judge has found that the Director of Basic Education under the impugned order dated 29.10.2009, did not examine the issues as to whether Sri Manish Kumar could be offered compassionate appointment in an aided Junior High School or not. He held that since on the date of death of Sri Vinod Kumar - the father of Sri Manish Kumar (respondent No. 7 in the writ petition), the mother of Sri Manish Kumar was employed in an institution, which was not receiving aid from the State Government, the proviso to Government Order dated 4.9.2000, was not attracted. The Director of Education (Basic) found that the appointment of Sri Manish Kumar on compassionate ground was in accordance with the Government Orders, and the o