“12. However, there is an aspect of the case which would warrant close scrutiny. The Additional Director, in his order dated 29 June 2017, directed that the sixth respondent should be appointed in the first vacancy which arose after 12 March 2014. Now, as the narration of facts indicates, the sixth respondent initially sought appointment as a Peon. Subsequently, after he had passed the engineering degree course and the Teachers’ Training course, he sought appointment for the first time on 12 March 2014 as a Lower Primary School Assistant. Evidently, the application which was submitted on 12 March 2014 cannot form the basis of compassionate appointment. Such an application, which was submitted nearly nine years after the death of the mother, could not have been entertained. That, however, does not obviate the position that the application which was originally submitted on 14 February 2007 for appointment as a Peon was not entertained without any justifiable reasons. The application was found to be in order and the claim of the sixth respondent for appointment was duly scrutinized and confirmed both by the Sub-District Education Officer as well as by the Additional Director . Hence, having regard to the principles which have been laid down by this Court in Shashi Kumar8 and P Venkatesh9 , the claim of the sixth respondent for appointment as a Lower Primary School Assistant would have to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. However, the claim for appointment as a Peon which was duly submitted on 14
