S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 14 -5 -1991 (Annexure -6 to the petition) and the order dated 9 -12 -1991 (Annexure -2 to the Amendment application) passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur. it is not disputed that one Ram Dhari Yadav was a Class IV employee in the institution and he retired from service on 31 -3 -1990. The petitioner was then appointed on the post which fell vacant on account of retirement of Ram Dhari Yadav by order dated, 18 -2 -1991 issued by the Principal of the College. It appears that the 5th respondent had also moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground, as her husband Rama Shanker Tiwari, an employee of the same institution, had died in harness and under Rule she was entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. The District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 6 -5 -1991 accorded financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner in response to the Principal's letter dated 18 -2 -1991 and 2 -5 -1991. While according financial sanction to the appointment of the petitioner, the District Inspector of the Schools remarked that the appointment of the 5th respondent would be considered against future vacancy. It appears that the 5th respondent filed a writ petition which was disposed of at the admission stage vide order dated 5 -4 -1991 with a direction to the respondents to decide her representation and if the averments made in the representation are found to be correct then "shall be offered a vacancy in Class IV forthwith, if already lying vacant, otherwise she shall be employed in the next available vacancy". The District Inspector of Schools by his order contained in the letter dated 14 -5 -1991 held that since the financial sanction to the appointment of the petitioner was accorded by letter dated 6 -5 -1991 and the writ petition filed by the 5th respondent was decided on 5 -4 -1991, the post on which the petitioner was appointed as aforesaid would be taken to be vacant on the date the petition filed by the 5th respondent was decided. Accordingly the District Inspector of Schools cancelled his earlier order dated 6 -5 -1991 according approval to the appointment of the petitioner. It is the validity of this order which has been challenged in the instant writ petition. By an interim order dated 26 -8 -1991, the respondents were directed to pay salary to the petitioner without prejudice to the rights of the 5th respondent to get her salary pursuant to her appointment, if any. It appears that the 5th respondent has since been appointed by letter dated 1 -7 -1991. The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 19 -12 -1991 has held that the petitioner's services would be deemed to have been terminated on 14 -5 -1991 and thereafter there is no question of payment of salary to the petitioner. This order is also sought to be quashed by means of an amendment application. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the appointment of the petitioner was made on 18 -2 -1991. The fact that the financial approval was given on 6 -5 -1991 would not make the post vacant as on 5 -4 -1991 the date on which the writ petition filed by the 5th respondent was decided without notice to the 'petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner's appointment to my mind is referable to the vacancy occurring due to retirement of Ram Dhari Yadav, whereas the appointment of the 5th respondent w.e.f. 1 -7 -1991 may be referable to a supernumerary post which may be deemed to have been created on 1 -7 -1991 in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushma Gusain v. Union of India, : 1989 (59) FLR 626 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the question of an appointment on compassionate ground was pleased to hold as under:
(2.) We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in the distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. It is not disputed that the District Inspector of Schools has set aside his earlier order dated 6 -5 -1991 by order dated 14 -5 -1991 without notice to the petitioner. The order dated 14 -5 -1991 having been passed in breach of principles of natural justice is void and liable to be quashed on this ground alone. So far as the subsequent order is concerned, it is a consequential order. It goes without saying that the main order having been quashed, the consequential order also stands quashed.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as duly appointed in the vacancy caused due to retirement of Ram Dhari Yadav, whereas the 5th respondent shall be deemed to have been appointed against a supernumerary post created with effect from 1 -7 -1991. Both the petitioner and the 5th respondent would get salary.;