Judgment 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not appointed him against Class III post, but against a Class IV post of Peon. 2. The brief fact of the case shows that the father of the petitioner, a State Government employee, died in harness, when the petitioner applied for compas- sionate appointment. The case of the petitioner was placed before Compas- sionate Appointment Committee for con- sideration. The Committee having found the petitioner fit for appointment on Class Mi post of Clerk, recommended for such appointment on 6/8th December, 1988. 3. Inspite of such recommendation and availability of Class III post of Clerk, no order of appointment was issued. The petitioner had to move before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12193/92. This Court by order dated 11th October, 1993 directed the respondents to issue letter of appoint- ment in favour of the petitioner. 4. After the direction of this Court, again the case of the petitioner was placed before Compassionate Appoint- ment Committee, who by its recommen- dation dated 24th January, 1994 again recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment against Class 111 post of Clerk. Inspite of such 2nd recommenda- tion and direction of this Court, no order of appointment was issued appointing the petitioner to the post of Clerk, but he was provided with order of appointment on 13th April, 1994 against the Class IV, post of Peon. 5. As the family of the petitioner was starving the petitioner has no other option but to join the Class IV post, and on such joining, filed the protest petition on 15th April, 1994. The same has been rejected by the respondents. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. They have given reference of Supreme Court decision. In State of Rajasthan vs. Umrao Singh, 1994(Vol. 6) Supreme Court Cases 560 and the decision in the case of State of Bihar vs. Samsuz Zoha etc. in Civil Appeal No. 7291/94. disposed of on 22nd March, 1996. 7. According to the counsel for the State, there is no right vested to the petitioner for appointment, against a particular post on compassionte ground. The petitioner having given appointment againt Class IV post, cannot challenge the same, nor can pray for appointment against Class III post. in Civil Appeal No. 7291/94. disposed of on 22nd March, 1996. 7. According to the counsel for the State, there is no right vested to the petitioner for appointment, against a particular post on compassionte ground. The petitioner having given appointment againt Class IV post, cannot challenge the same, nor can pray for appointment against Class III post. It is further submitted that once the petitioner has been appointed against Class IV post on compassionate ground, there cannot be second appointment on compassionate ground against a Class III post. 8. I have heard the parties and have gone through the writ petition, counter affidavit and the enclosures thereto. After hearing the parties, I find that the case of the petitioner is not similar to the cases as referred by the respondents in their counter affidavit. 9. It is true that a candidate, who claims for compassionate ground, has got no claim for appointment against any particular post. However, that does not mean that the appointing authority can act in an arbitrary manner in the matter of issuance of letter of appointment. In particular cases, it is always open to the appointing authority to refuse appointment against a particular post on one or other valid ground. For example, if Class III post is not available or a person is not eligible and/or if such person has not been recommended by Committee for such appointment, the appointing authority can refuse to grant appointment against one or other post. However, if a person is eligible for appointment against a Class III post, such post is available and the Committee also recommends to appoint against such Class III post, then in that case, the appointing authority cannot refuse appointment against Class III post v. ifhout any valid reason. Otherwise, such action will be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and "16 of the Constitution of ndia. 10. In the present case, it is not in dispute that Class III post of Clerk was available, when the petitioner was provided with order of appointment against Class IV post. The petitioner, was also eligible for appointment against Class III post. The Compassionate Appointment Committee also recommended to appoint the petitioner against Class III post. In such circumstances, the respondents should not have refused the petitioner appointment against Class III ppst. 11. The petitioner, was also eligible for appointment against Class III post. The Compassionate Appointment Committee also recommended to appoint the petitioner against Class III post. In such circumstances, the respondents should not have refused the petitioner appointment against Class III ppst. 11. In the counter affidavit also, the respondents have failed to give any reason for non issuance of letter of appointment against Class III post. 12. For the reasons stated above, I direct the respondents to issue appropriate order modifying the order of appointment dated 13th April, 1994 and to provide the petitioner appointment against Class III post. However, for the purpose of payment of salary, such order is to be given prospective effect, and not from retrospective date. This order is to be complied by the respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.