Judgment :- The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the second respondent dated 6.7.1997 and the consequential proceedings of the Commissioner, Tirumangalam Panchayat Union, Tirumangalam in Na.Ka.No.3349/97/T.1, dated 9.7.1997 and to direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant in Tirumangalam Panchayat Union with all consequential and other service benefits. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner’s father died on 21.3.1983, while he was working as office assistant at Chellampatti Panchayat, Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application for Com­passionate appointment. Pursuant to which, the petitioner was given Compassionate appointment by an order dated 20.3.1994 as Junior Assistant it Tirumangalam Panchayat Union in a regular vacancy in the pay scale of Rs.975-25-115030-1660 and at the time of the petitioner's appointment, she was aged about 40 years and due to the indigent circumstances, she could not marry and continue to live as spinster. 3. The said appointment was sought to be regularized by the recommendation of the District Collector, Madurai dated 30.1.1995 addressed to the Director of Rural Development. However, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by the impugned order dated 6.7.1997 without stating any reason. In the impugned order except the words “the appointment on Compassionate ground given to the petitioner is cancelled�, no other-details or reason is stated. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said order of cancellation was challenged in O.A.No.6564 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, and in view of the interim stay granted by the said Tribunal, the petitioner is continuously working as Junior Assistant in Tirumangalam Panchayat Union. 5. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the respondents, I have considered the rival submissions of the respective counsels. 6. In the impugned order, no reason has been stated. The, respondents cannot justify the order of cancellation by filing the counter affidavit explaining the reasons. It is well settled in law that the impugned order shall state the reasons and the mason's cannot be incorporated or supplemented while filing the counter affidavit. 6. In the impugned order, no reason has been stated. The, respondents cannot justify the order of cancellation by filing the counter affidavit explaining the reasons. It is well settled in law that the impugned order shall state the reasons and the mason's cannot be incorporated or supplemented while filing the counter affidavit. The said view his been emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision re­ported in Mokindar Singh Gill and another V. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851, wherein in para.8, It is held as follows: "The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, the order which was made in the beginning by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out". Hence, the reason given in the counter affidavit cannot be taken note of. 7. In this case, the petitioner having been appointed and her services having been recommended for regularization, there is no justification on the part of the respondents to cancel the appointment after four years. Even in the case of persons appointed on consolidated salary, for whom there is no service rule applicable, this Court is setting aside the order of termination, if no notice is served or no enquiry is conducted before the order of termination is passed. 8. While dealing with a similar issue, this Court in a case reported in V.L. Lakshmanakumar v. District Manager, "TASMAC" Limited, Madurai District, Madurai and another, (2006) 1 M.L.J.187: (2006) 1] C.T.C.660, has set aside the impugned order by following the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National centre for Basic Science, (1993) 3 S.C.C. 60 and State of Haryana v. Satyender Singh Rathore, (2005) 7 S.C.C. 518 . The said judgments were followed by me in the order passed in W.P.No.13209 of 2005 dated 14.3.2006 and in other matters. 9. Following the said judgments and, having regard to the nature of the impugned orders, the impugned orders are set aside. The said judgments were followed by me in the order passed in W.P.No.13209 of 2005 dated 14.3.2006 and in other matters. 9. Following the said judgments and, having regard to the nature of the impugned orders, the impugned orders are set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the stay granted, the petitioner is allowed to work, but the annual increments are not sanctioned to her. The respondents are directed to sanctioned to her. The respondents are directed to sanction the annual increments and all other benefits entitled to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs. Petition allowed.