R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT here alongwith four other persons, all of whom had worked for some time on adhoc basis as teachers in Central Schools and whose services have not been continued, filed a writ petition before this Court for writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein to consider their cases for regularisation of their services. Further prayers for payment of salary and other reliefs in connection therewith, were also made. When the writ petition came up for hearing a supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner -respondent mentioning therein that her husband, who was Colonel in the Army has expired on 16.1.1992 leaving behind her and two minor daughters. She accordingly requested that she may be appointed under Dying in Harness Rules.
(2.) LEARNED Single Judge while allowing the writ petition, held that the service of the petitioner cannot be regularised and thus the relief claimed in the writ petition was refused. However, on the basis of the supplementary affidavit, filed by petitioner -respondent, learned Judge issued direction to the respondents to the Writ petition to appoint her as a teacher on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules, in Kendriya Vidyalaya, New Cantt., Allahabad, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before them. The appellant being aggrieved by the above judgment, has filed this appeal. While entertaining this special Appeal this Court on 21.5.1992 stayed the operation of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Only relief claimed in the writ petition was for regularisation of the services of the respondent here and four other petitioners. Payment of salary and some other reliefs in connection therewith, were also claimed. There was no prayer in the writ petition for appointing her as a teacher on compassionate ground. Even after the supplementary affidavit was filed the writ petition was not amended by incorporating the appropriate grounds and the appropriate relief in connection therewith. From the record it appears that no time was granted to the respondents to file counter -affidavit in reply to the supplementary affidavit. The appointment on compassionate ground was not within the purview of the writ petition and no such direction for her appointment, as a teacher, could have been issued. That apart, as held by Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar & another, 1994 (2) JT 183, the appointment on compassionate ground is not automatic on the death of the servant, as other factors are also liable to be taken into consideration by the appropriate authority, who, under law, is competent to make such appointment. It is not proper for this Court to issue any direction to the Government for making such appointment. Proper course is to issue direction to the appropriate authority to consider the case for appointment on compassionate ground. The powers and the functions which are vested in an authority cannot be usurped by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.4.1992, is set -aside. It will be open to the respondent to make a representation for her appointment on compassionate ground in central job before the appropriate authority, alongwith a certified copy of this order and if such a representation is made, the same shall be decided by the concerned authority within three months from the date of presentation of the representation.;