Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the letter bearing No. LR-A/133/98/10811 dated 14-1-98 as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ application issued under the signature of respondent No. 5, the Administrative Officer, Indian Lac Research Institute, Namkum, Ranchi whereby the petitioners request for appointment of petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground has been rejected, 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the widow and petitioner No. 2 is the son of the late Azizur Rahman who was a permanent employee of respondent No. 1, Indian Lac Research Institute, Namkum, Ranchi. Said Azizur Rahman after serving for 33 years, died in harness on 16-6-94 leaving behind his widow, two unemployed sons and one married daughter. Petitioners case was that the family of the deceased had no source of income and, therefore, petitioner No. 1 applied to the Director, Indian Lac Research Institute on 12-7-94 requesting him to appoint her son, petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground. She also brought to his notice that the eldest son was married and was living separately and was not giving any financial assistance to her. On the said application proper inquiry was made and the Director of the Institute, after verification, recommended the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground in Group C* as the application of the petitioner No. 1 was considered in the light of the instruction contained in office memo dated 9-12-93 issued by the Government of India. The petitioner filed several representations thereafter before the respondent concerned but nothing was done for a long time and ultimately by letter dated 25-8-95 issued under the signature of the Administrative Officer, petitioner No. 1 was informed that her application for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 3. The petitioner then moved this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 3555/ 96R challenging the order of the respondents refusing to give employment on compassionate ground. The writ application was allowed in terms of order dated 2-9-97 setting aside the order of the respondents. The matter was remitted back to the respondents-authority for taking fresh decision by passing a reasoned order." 4. In pursuance of the order of this Court petitioner No. 1 again filed a detailed representation before respondent No. 1, the Director of the Institute. The matter was remitted back to the respondents-authority for taking fresh decision by passing a reasoned order." 4. In pursuance of the order of this Court petitioner No. 1 again filed a detailed representation before respondent No. 1, the Director of the Institute. However, the petitioner did not hear anything from the respondents for a long time and, as such, she again filed another representation on 29-12-97. Ultimately, to her utter surprise, by another letter dated 14-1-98 issued under the signature of the Administrative officer, petitioner No. 1 was informed that the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground has again been rejected. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ application. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents, stating inter alia, that as per the directives of this Court in the order dated 2-9-97 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3555/96R the case of the petitioners was again examined by the competent authority as per G.O.I. Rules issued time to time for appointment on compassionate ground. It is stated that the case of the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority of the Institute on the ground that it was not covered under the instruction issued by G.I.I. rules time to time. The respondents have also denied and dispute the other statements made in the writ application. 6. I have heard Mr. A. Sahay, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel, Central Government and also perused the affidavits filed by the parties. 7. From perusal of Annexure-13 which is the impugned order, it transpires that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected mainly on three grounds, firstly that the eldest son of the deceased-employee is a practising advocate in Court, secondly that the financial condition of the widow does not warrant appointment on compassionate ground and, thirdly that the respondent-Institute has no vacancy in Group C and, therefore, no appointment could be made in absence of any available vacancy. 8. I will first proceed to deal with the first two grounds on which the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 8. I will first proceed to deal with the first two grounds on which the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. In this connection, I must take note of the fact that the deceased died in 1994 and his widow made an application for appointment on compassionate ground stating, inter alia, that her eldest son is not residing with her and not giving financial support to the family. The respondent No. 1, through its Director, inquired into the matter and processed the application and after satisfaction, finally recommended the case of the petitioner vide letter No. 9713 dated 11-1-95 addressed to the Under Secretary, I. A. IV Section, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi. A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced hereinbelow: Her application was considered in the light of instructions contained in office memorandum No. 1404/20/90-Estt(D) dated 9-12-93 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and pensions, Deptt. of Personnel and Training, New Delhi, (ICAR endorsement No. 21(3)/94-Cdn dated 8th March, 1994). I am to inform you that the entire burden of remaining two sons and one daughter who are studying at Ranchi college depend upon her and she is facing with great financial hardship. In this connection, I am to state that as per instructions contained in the above cited O. II. prior approval of the Secretary of the Council is required for considering such cases for appointment on compassionate ground. In view of the circumstances and facts stated above, it is recommended that the appointment of Sri Lalisur Rahman on compassionate ground in Ground C post (Jr. clerk) may kindly be considered and approval of the competent authority in this regard may kindly be obtained and communicated to the undersigned at an early date. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Director. 9 In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, no where it is stated that the case of the petitioner was again inquired into and on inquiry it was found that the family of the petitioner is not facing financial crisis or the eldest son of the widow is supporting the entire family. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Director. 9 In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, no where it is stated that the case of the petitioner was again inquired into and on inquiry it was found that the family of the petitioner is not facing financial crisis or the eldest son of the widow is supporting the entire family. In para 12 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Council examined the case in detail as per G.I.I, rules and not found it to be a fit case for compassionate appointment. It is, rather, surprising as to how the respondent concerned, under whose instruction the impugned letter was issued, came to the said finding without any basis merely on perusal of G.I.I., rules. The respondents have not denied and disputed the correctness of the letter of recommendation issued by the Director of the Institute recommending for giving appointment on compassionate ground. It is, therefore, clear that the first two grounds for rejection of the petitioners claim is illegal, arbitrary and without any basis. 10. The third ground upon which the petitioners claim has been rejected is that there is no existing vacancy in Group-C. The plea taken by the respondents is falsified by the fact that the respondents have advertised vacancies of two posts of Group-C in the daily newspaper. A copy of the paper cutting has been filed and annexed as Annexure-14 to the supplementary affidavit. The facts stated by the petitioners in the supplementary affidavit has not been denied or disputed by the respondents. I am conscious of the legal position as settled by the apex Court that no application for compassionate appointment can be entertained in the absence of any existing vacancy or when there is a ban on fresh recruitment. But, in the instant case, as noticed above, there is vacancy available in the respondents-Institute for which post have been advertised. In such circumstances the rejection of the claim of the petitioners on the ground of non-availability of vacancy, cannot be said to be bona fide. Besides the above, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the same ground without any fresh inquiry or without any fresh notice, is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. Besides the above, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the same ground without any fresh inquiry or without any fresh notice, is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. It has been categorically stated by the petitioners in the writ petition that the eldest son of the deceased is not even a law graduate and there is no question of his practising as an advocate, rather, he is also sitting idle and living separately with his wife. 11. From perusal of the entire facts and evidence, it appears that since the respondents have once rejected the claim of the petitioner, they have decided not to review the said order in spite of the order and direction passed by this Court in the earlier writ application. The earlier order was set aside by this Court on the ground that no reason was assigned for such rejection. The respondents passed the same order of rejection this time but disclosed grounds which are contrary to their own findings as evident from Annexure-3. 12. For the reasons stated above, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondent concerned as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ application is hereby quashed. Let a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents directing them to forthwith provide employment to the son of petitioner No. 1 on compassionate ground because the fulfils the requirements of the rules. However, there shall be no order as to costs.