EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. B. VELANKANNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent petitioner, who has put in appearance on instructions.

(2.) The writ appeal assails the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2018 and the stand taken by the State is that the respondent petitioner did not have vested right to claim appointment on compassionate basis, inasmuch as the Government had laid a ban on appointments and therefore, the post did not exist for any consideration of compassionate appointment of the respondent petitioner. This fact has been noticed by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment and the learned Single Judge thereafter has proceeded ahead to accept the claim of the respondent petitioner with a direction that the claim of the respondent petitioner ought to have been considered and therefore, refusing to grant compassionate appointment was set aside with a direction to provide compassionate appointment to the respondent petitioner by creating a supernumerary post.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant State contends that this direction could not have been given inasmuch as the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.84, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (T.P.20 Department, dated 21.05.1998, on which reliance has been placed recites as under: