Judgment :- Heard Mr. S.N. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.N. Sivaprakasam, learned Standing counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The petitioner prays for a issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication letter No. 116/Adm. 3/u.Tha.4/Ko.Ve.Va.98 dated 012. 98 passed by the Second Respondent and to quash the same and also direct the respondents to appoint him on Compassionate Grounds. 3. A perusal of the impugned order would show that there had been no application of mind. The impugned order is not a speaking order. Mr. A.N. Sivaprakasam, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents fairly admits that the second respondent has to pass a speaking order after considering the petitioner’s claim on merits. On facts also, the compassionate appointment cannot be rejected in toto, and it depends upon various contingencies as to the availability, qualification, nature of family conditions as well as the present financial conditions of the petitioner and his family. Without reference to any of those factors, and without reference to the guidelines of the Board as well as the State Government, the impugned order has been passed. The rejection is arbitrary and it cannot be sustained. 4. Hence, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent are quashed and there will be a direction, directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate ground on merits and according to the Board’s circulars as well as the Government orders and pass orders according to law within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. 5. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.