JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - The solution to the issues raised in the petition has arrived upon the grace which has been shown by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. But for this the petitioner would have had difficulty in receiving any immediate relief. 2. The petitioner is a widow who received a job as a Class IV employee in lieu of her husband who died in harness. She was given a job effective 1st January, 1983 as a Sweeperess on a pay scale of Rs. 305 - 390. Thereafter it is on record, and the petitioner attempts to dispute the circumstances, that in 1983, 1984 - 85 and 1985 - 86 she was absent for 80 days with pay, absent for 134 days on medical leave and absent for 84 days without pay. During this period she was absent for 298 days. 3. On 31 December, 1983 the Principal of the College, S. D. Intermediate College, Mainpuri, gave her a warning that, her services would be terminated if she did not check herself on absenteeism. With this warning in hand the petitioner went riming to the District Collector and the District Inspector of Schools, Manipuri who in their turn set to interfere in the matter. It is on record that the petitioner accepted her faults and apologised before the district administration. This chapter was over and after about three years the petitioner repeated her old habits of being absent. She did not report for duty on 25 August, 1983 and thereafter. On 3 September, 1983 the petitioner was sent a show cause notice from the Principal seeking her explanation on being absent. She did not take the warning seriously. The show cause notice was sought again on 5 September, 1986 and the petitioner was required to submit her reply within 5 5 days. She evaded setting her explanation on record. The Principal published a notice in a local daily on 19 October, 1986 that the petitioner may treat her services as having been dispensed with these facts are on record of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 2 June, 1987. 4. Thereafter, the record is cluttered with allegations by the petitioner of an insinuation that the Principal had sought certain monies out of the insurance which was to be paid to her, after her husbands death. 4. Thereafter, the record is cluttered with allegations by the petitioner of an insinuation that the Principal had sought certain monies out of the insurance which was to be paid to her, after her husbands death. Also on record are letters of certain teachers that the petitioner was dismissed from service without any reasonable cause. In so far as the petitioners insinuation is concerned this is not a factor which this Court can take note of when the allegations have been made without making the person against whim allegations have been caused, a party to the writ petition. This opportunity cannot be granted now. 5. The petitioner contends vehemently that she must return to her job as she is in straitened circumstances. But in, the facts and circumstances of the present case. Compassion cannot be the answer for redress on the relief sought in the writ petition. A reading of the order impugned and passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 2 June, 1987 only shows that the petitioner has herself to blame for bringing about this impasse and the solution sought is in her hands. 6. While this controversy was being considered before the Committee of Management and the District Inspector of Schools irrelevant issues were considered which had no relevance in reference to the context. These were issues whether the petitioner had remarried and if not, the children begotten were illegitimate, Neither the alleged remarriage nor the children allegedly illegitimately begotten is a relevant fact in an issue whether the petitioner was rightly dismissed from her job. 7. The petitioner ought to have straight away apologised to the Principal of the College in response to the notice dated 3 September, 1986 referring to her unauthorised absence from duty effective 25 August, 1986. The petitioner had no hesitation in apologising to the District Collector and the District inspector of Schools, but would not present herself before the Principal. It is the Principal and the Committee of Management which she works for and she adopted a face saving device to submit apologies where it was not wanted. 8. The petitioner has yet to answer her explanation for being absent from duty without permission. The petitioner is running away from the show cause notice. 9. It is at this state learned Counsel for the respondent, upon a suggestion made by the Court, presented a solution. 8. The petitioner has yet to answer her explanation for being absent from duty without permission. The petitioner is running away from the show cause notice. 9. It is at this state learned Counsel for the respondent, upon a suggestion made by the Court, presented a solution. There could not be a better gesture. Thus, should the petitioner decide to apologise to the Principal unconditionally and in writing for absence from her job from 25 August, 1986 it would amount to complying with the notice upon which her explanation was formally sought by the letter from the Principal. It has been contended on behalf of the Principal of the College at the apology, if it is forth coming, will be considered sympathetically, and the Principal will consider giving her employment on daily wages and thereafter regularise her services. 10. Thus, there has been a graceful and on the initiative of the respondent, to this writ petition. 11. In the event of the petitioner rendering an apology as suggested at the Bar here, which must be done before this year is out, the Principal of the College and the Committee of Management would act on their assurance and effective the day the apology is tendered grant employment on daily wages to the petitioner. Thereafter subject to good conduct and efficiency of service, regularise the petitioners services. 12. The writ petition is decided accordingly on the respondents concession. Thus, there will be no order on costs