JUDGMENT R.A. Sharma, J. - Petitioner's father, who was peon in K.P. Intermediate College, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as College) died on 7.10.1986 while in service. Government of Uttar Pradesh had issued order for appointing dependant of an employee of the educational institution who was bread earner of the family and had died in harness. The petitioner as such applied for appointment for the post of peon as he was eligible for the same. The Principal of the college appointed the petitioner as peon and foreword the papers to the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, for approval. The District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, by order dated 7.2.1987 approved the appointment of the petitioner as peon in the college after relaxing the norms. The petitioner accordingly joined the college and since then working as peon in the college. It appears that after some times the petitioner was not paid his salary and as such he made several representations to the District Inspector of Schools. Allahabad, and Deputy Director of Education. However, the petitioner, by order dated 5.7.1989, passed by District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, had been asked to join another college known as Ishwar Saran Inter College, on the ground that there being no vacancy in the college the petitioner cannot be appointed in it. The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the aforesaid orders and also for payment of salary including the arrears. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, and in para 4 where of it has been stated that by order dated 7.2.1987 petitioner was appointed as peon in the college after relaxing norms, but later on it came to the notice that two posts of lecturer and certain posts of class-IV employees were in excess of the norms and as such operation of the order of approval dated 7.2.1987 was stopped by latter dated 16.12.1987. It appears that this letter dated 16.12.1987 was not communicated to the petitioner and he has no knowledge about it. As this fact about subsequent order dated 16.12.1987 was mentioned in the counter-affidavit, the petitioner in his rejoinder-affidavit had categorically stated that he was not given any opportunity of being heard before passing the aforesaid order. It is further asserted that even before passing the impugned order dated 5.7.1989 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard. It is further asserted that even before passing the impugned order dated 5.7.1989 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard. 3. The very fact that the petitioner was appointment on compassionate ground by District inspector of Schools after relaxing norms shows that there was no vacancy at that lime otherwise there was no necessity for relaxing the norms. It is not disputed that the District Inspector of Schools is competent to make appointments on compassionate ground by relaxing norms if bread earner of the family dies in harness. Once an appointment has been made it cannot be set-aside, cancelled or disapproved by the same authority except on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake which goes to the root of the matter. It is not the case of the respondents that petitioner is guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation. It is also not the case of such a mistake which could justify reviewing/stopping the order of appointment. District Inspector)' of Schools was fully justified to appointing the petitioner in the college as peon after relaxing norms and there is no justification to pass the impugned orders. 4. Even if the appointment order is made under some mistake or due to fraud or mis-representation it cannot be cancelled or stopped except, in accordance with principles of natural justice . Petitioner having been appointed and his appointment having been approved by the District Inspector of Schools, the aforesaid orders could not have been passed without giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard. The opportunity not having been given to the petitioner the impugned orders stand vitiated and are liable lo be set aside. 5. In this connection it may be mentioned that Supreme Court in Smt. Sushama Gosain and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1976 SC 1976 has laid down that in the case of an employee dying in harness behind, some dependents it is the duty of the authority concerned to give appointment to the dependent on compassionate ground and if there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the dependent. Relevant passage from the judgement is extracted below : "We consider that it must be staled unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. Relevant passage from the judgement is extracted below : "We consider that it must be staled unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is not suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant." 6. Writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Orders dated 16.12.1987 and 4.7.1989 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, are quashed.The petitioner will he entitled to his salary from month to month and wilt also be paid the arrears, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.