JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. : Heard Mr. J. K. Mishra, Learned Assist¬ant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petition¬ers against the judgment and order dated 20.1.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.234 of 2002 which was filed by opposite party No.1 against the rejection of her case for compassionate appointment and for a direction to the authority concerned to provide compassionate appointment in her favour. The Tribunal allowed the O.A., quashed order rejecting the case of the O.P. No.1 which was impugned therein and further directed the petitioners to provide a compas¬sionate appointment (Group-D post) to the opposite party No.1 by granting necessary relaxation in qualification, if any, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copies of its order. 3. We had also summoned the concerned record, which has been produced before us by Shri J. K. Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General, today. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the late husband of opposite party No.1 was a driver in the office of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack South Division who ex¬pired on 01.03.2000 leaving behind his widow (the present O.P. No.1), mother, two minor sons and one minor daughter. Thereafter, the opposite party No.1 moved an application for compassionate appointment praying therein that since she was possessing the educational qualification of Class-V pass only, her appointment was liable to be considered in Group-D post after relaxing the educational qualification. There was only one vacancy in Group-D post available in Compassionate quota and as many as 34 number of applicants were on the prey. The case of four candidates includ¬ing opposite party No.1 found to be most deserving were to be considered. 5. On perusal of record, it is revealed that the following persons were considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee against Group-D post. 1. Smt. Anjali Pattnaik, W/O- Late K.T.V. Ramanaya, Ex. Postman, Medical College, SO Berhampur (Gm) Division. 2. Sri Biranchi Baga, S/O- Late Nirakar Bagh, Ex. Group-D Rourkela-8 SO. 3. Smt. Hiramani Munda, W/O- Late Jogeswar Munda, Ex. PA Balsore HO. 4. Smt. Tunirani Das, W/O- Late Natabar Das, Ex Driver, Cuttack South Division (instant O.P. No.1) 6. 1. Smt. Anjali Pattnaik, W/O- Late K.T.V. Ramanaya, Ex. Postman, Medical College, SO Berhampur (Gm) Division. 2. Sri Biranchi Baga, S/O- Late Nirakar Bagh, Ex. Group-D Rourkela-8 SO. 3. Smt. Hiramani Munda, W/O- Late Jogeswar Munda, Ex. PA Balsore HO. 4. Smt. Tunirani Das, W/O- Late Natabar Das, Ex Driver, Cuttack South Division (instant O.P. No.1) 6. The Committee found that there was only one post for the year 2001 under compassionate recruitment quota and Smt. Anjali Pattanaik was found to be the most deserving one amongst the aforesaid four candidates as she was having four marriageable daughters and a minor son to be taken care of. The C.R.C. found that the other candidates are either having less number of de¬pendants or they are themselves capable to earn their livelihood to support the family. 7. Consequentially a letter was sent to opposite party No.1 on 23.1.2002 by the Assistant Director (Rectt.) for CPMG Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar intimating that the C.R.C. considered her case for compassionate appointment and rejected the same. The reason for such rejection was that as she was paid the terminal benefit around Rs.56,724/- towards DCRG and also being paid family pension @ Rs. 1713 + DR per month. 8. Thereafter, the aforesaid Original Application was filed by opposite party No.1 and while disposing of the same, the Tribunal vide impugned order directed the petitioners to give her compassionate appointment. 9. Being aggrieved the instant writ petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that the Tribunal had not gone through the valid reasons furnished in the counter affidavit to the Original Application specially that the case of the opposite party No.1 for compassionate appointment was considered along with the similar other cases and the most deserving one as per availability of vacancy in the light of the instruction of the D.G. of Posts, New Delhi was selected and the remaining cases were rejected and she cold not be appointed due to non availability of the vacancy as per the guidelines issued under para-7 (a) & (b) of scheme for compassionate appointment circu¬lated in O.M. No.14014/6/94-Estd (D), dtd 09.10.1998 of the Department of Personnel & Training, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Since Mr. Since Mr. J. K. Mishra has submitted that the opposite party No.1 could not have claimed the appointment as a matter of right and the Tribunal has commit¬ted manifest error of law in directing the instant petitioner to give compassionate appointment to the opposite party No.1 which is against the case laws laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 1994 SC 2148 (Life Insurance Corporation of India vrs. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar and another) wherein it is held as fol¬lows : “19. Thus, apart from the directions as to appointment on compassionate grounds being against statutory provisions, such direction does not take note of this fact. Whatever it may be the Court should not have directed the appointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction under mandamus can not be exercised in that fashion. It should have merely directed consideration of the claim of the 2nd respondent. To straightway direct the appoint¬ment would only put the appellant Corporation in piquant situa¬tion. The disobedience of this direction will entail contempt notwithstanding the fact that the appointment may not be warrant¬ed. This is yet another ground which renders the impugned judg¬ment dated 19-10-93 unsupportable. For these reasons, the civil appeal will stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Mr. S.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 submitted that the case of the opposite party No.1 was the most deserving case in comparison to the case of the other persons, namely Smt. Anjali Pattanaik who was found by the C.R.C. to be the most deserving candidate for compassionate appointment, due to the reason that Smt. Anjali Pattnaik was a widow of an Ex. postman whereas opposite party No.1 is the widow of a Driver. But this argument has no force as the Committee comprising of three officers, viz, Chief Post Master General, Orissa Circle, Director of Post Officers, Bhubaneswar and Post Master General, Berhampur (Gm) Rgn. was authorized and it was the expert body to consider the most deserving candidate. postman whereas opposite party No.1 is the widow of a Driver. But this argument has no force as the Committee comprising of three officers, viz, Chief Post Master General, Orissa Circle, Director of Post Officers, Bhubaneswar and Post Master General, Berhampur (Gm) Rgn. was authorized and it was the expert body to consider the most deserving candidate. Besides this, we have also consid¬ered that the widow of a Post Man who was having financial burden of four marriageable daughters besides a minor son was undoubted¬ly more deserving candidate for giving compassionate appointment in comparison to the opposite party No.1 who was having two minor sons and one minor daughter aged about 8, 7 and 4 years respec¬tively and also mother in law aged about 70 years. Besides this, we found that the opposite party No.1 was getting a family pen¬sion @ Rs. 1713 + DR per month. That apart according to the income certificate filed by her for the purpose of obtaining a compassionate appointment shows that her income is Rs. 5,500/- per annum. 11. In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed manifest error of law in issuing direction to the instant petitioner to provide a compassionate appointment in Group-D post to the oppo¬site party No.1. In view of this, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is quashed. Howev¬er, there shall be no order as to costs. N. PRUSTY, J. I agree. Petition allowed.