the time of his death and funeral rites, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were conspicuously absent, which further casts serious doubt on the veracity of their claims. It is next submitted that the petitioner’s father himself was appointed on compassionate grounds following the death of his father, and therefore, upon his demise, any consideration for compassionate appointment must necessarily take into account the consent and dependency of the immediate family, particularly the petitioner and her grandmother. However, respondent No. 5 has sought to secure such appointment solely on the basis of the impugned succession certificate, which itself has been issued without jurisdiction and is thus legally unsustainable. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is vitiated on account of non-consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner and her grandmother. Despite filing detailed objections, the authorities neither adjudicated upon them nor afforded an opportunity of hearing. The report was mechanically submitted by the Tahsildar and SDO, and on the very same day, the Additional Collector proceeded to issue the succession certificate without calling for any verification from the concerned department where the deceased was employed. In light of the aforesaid submissions, it is contended that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles of law. The same deserves to be quashed as being without jurisdiction, violative of natural justice, and unsustainable
