JUDGMENT Honble A.P. Sahi, J.—The questions, raised in these two writ petitions, call upon this Court to answer the issue, as to whether once a person has been extended the benefit of compassionate appointment under the relevant statutory Rules, then can a further claim for being appointed on a higher post on the same basis be made subsequent thereto. Sri Santosh Singh-the petitioner in the first writ petition has prayed for a mandamus commanding the Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar, to decide his representation dated 26.3.2002 wherein he has staked a similar claim on the basis of such benefits having been extended to the Respondent Nos. 3 to 11. 2. The petitioner-Santosh Singh claimed compassionate appointment upon the death of his father, who died on 23.2.1977 and who was in harness at the time of his death working as a Teacher in a Primary School, the services whereof are governed by the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and the rules framed thereunder. The benefit of compassionate appointment in such matters has been extended from time to time under the relevant Government Orders for all primary institutions including Junior High Schools. In the instant case, the petitioner claims appointment under the Government Order dated 23.3.1990 and it is accepted on record that Santosh Singh was appointed as a Class IV employee in a Senior Basic School (Junior High School), Sarasaul, on 12.8.1992. After almost 10 years, on 26.3.2002, an application was filed by Santosh Singh before the Basic Education Officer requesting for his appointment as a Teacher on compassionate basis in view of the fact that the Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 and other similarly situated persons had been extended such benefits and that he holds the requisite qualification for being appointed as such. It was contented on his behalf before the authorities as well as before this Court that the aforesaid Government Order indicates that the appointment has to be commensurate to the qualification of the candidate and since the Government Order also makes a provision for appointment as an Assistant Teacher on compassionate basis, therefore, the applicant ought to be appointed as a Teacher instead of a class-IV employee. In effect, he wanted modification of his appointment letter which was for a class-IV post and get it converted into an appointment as a Teacher after having worked for 10 years as a class-IV employee. 3. In effect, he wanted modification of his appointment letter which was for a class-IV post and get it converted into an appointment as a Teacher after having worked for 10 years as a class-IV employee. 3. The petition filed by Santosh Singh discloses that a complaint was made before the Director of Education (Basic), a copy whereof is Annexure-3 and a reminder to the Basic Education Officer was sent reiterating the same. The complaint before the Director of Education levels allegations against the Respondent No. 3-Mohd. Parvez Alam for having manipulated his appointment and also responsible for his unauthorized activities including victimization of persons like the applicant and virtually running the office of the Basic Education Officer by virtue of his attachment in the said office. The complaint further levels allegations against him relating to his alleged nefarious activities with a request that a stern action should be taken against him and an enquiry should be made as to how Mohd. Parvez Alam and others have been given the second benefit under the Compassionate Appointment Rules, which is impermissible in law. 4. Sri Santosh Singh having failed to achieve his aim, and keeping in view the fact that a report was submitted against him indicating that he cannot be given the said benefit, the present writ petition was filed for the relief referred to herein above. Upon having examined the nature of the complaint and the claim of the petitioner, an order was passed by this Court on 6.9.2005 calling upon the Basic Education Officer to show cause as to how a double benefit of compassionate appointment was extended to the Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 by modifying their appointments after 7 years of their initial appointment as a class-IV employee. The Basic Education Officer filed a counter-affidavit dated 21.10.2005 and in para 5 thereof he alleged that the claim of Santosh Singh cannot be accepted as “A wrong cannot be perpetuated by a judicial command”. In paragraph 7 of the said Affidavit, the Basic Education Officer has stated that it is well settled that no-one can claim for a subsequent appointment after having accepted the appointment once under the Dying-in-Hamess Rules. A Rejoinder-Affidavit to the said counter-affidavit was filed by Santosh Singh again reiterating that such a benefit has been extended to the Respondent Nos. In paragraph 7 of the said Affidavit, the Basic Education Officer has stated that it is well settled that no-one can claim for a subsequent appointment after having accepted the appointment once under the Dying-in-Hamess Rules. A Rejoinder-Affidavit to the said counter-affidavit was filed by Santosh Singh again reiterating that such a benefit has been extended to the Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 and, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same treatment or else the action would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. This Court vide order dated 28.11.2005 considering the aforesaid language employed by the Basic Education Officer summoned him to explain further as to what he intended by the aforesaid averments and to file a better Affidavit. The Basic Education Officer filed a supplementary-counter-affidavit on 21.12.2005 stating therein that the entire records pertaining to the second appointment of Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 as Assistant Teachers was missing. He, however, stated that it appears that the said second benefit was given in view of the representation made by the Respondent No. 3-Mohd. Parvez Alam and the Respondent No. 5-Chandra Mauli Tripathi as well as such other similarly situated persons. The said supplementary-counter-affidavit brings on record a letter of the Joint Director of Education dated 4.9.1997 on the basis whereof it is urged that the cases of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 were not cases of double benefit inasmuch their appointment orders were modified by cancelling the earlier appointments on class-IV posts on the ground that the said respondents ought to have been appointed against the post of Assistant Teachers which was commensurate to their qualifications and which was the intention expressed in the Government Order dated 23.3.1990. 6. Taking notice of the fact that the files pertaining to the appointment of Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 were missing, this Court took up the matter on 23.11.2005 by which time the Basic Education Officer had already lodged an F.I.R. on 22.12.2005 in respect of the missing files against Ram Naresh Singh, the dealing clerk. Through a letter of the same date, a request was made to the Joint Director of Education to initiate disciplinary action against Ram Naresh Singh, who according to the Basic Education Officer was responsible for the missing files. Through a letter of the same date, a request was made to the Joint Director of Education to initiate disciplinary action against Ram Naresh Singh, who according to the Basic Education Officer was responsible for the missing files. These facts were brought on record on 23.12.2005 through a second supplementary-counter-affidavit which also stated that an action had been taken against Santosh Singh for transferring him on 7.11.2005 which was, however, cancelled on 21.12.2005. This Court, after taking notice of the said facts, passed a detailed order on 23.12.2005, prima facie, opining that such subsequent benefits of upgrading appointments in respect of compassionate claims was impermissible keeping in view the Supreme Court decision and, therefore, a further direction was issued to stop payment of salary to the contesting respondents and further an enquiry to be conducted by the Director of Education (Basic) in this regard. 7. The Director of Education submitted a report on 6.1.2006 before this Court and further proceeded to pass an order on 6.2.2006 cancelling the appointments of Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 on the post of Assistant Teachers and retaining them as class-IV employees which was their original appointment on compassionate basis. 8. The Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 have assailed the said order in the connected Writ Petition No. 10143 of 2006. Both these writ petitions have been nominated to this Bench for consideration. 9. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel, has advanced his submissions on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 11, who are the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10143 of 2006, Sri S.S. Tomar has been heard for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 59248 of 2005, Sri K. Shahi has been heard for the Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar, in both the writ petitions and the learned Standing Counsel has been heard for the State and the other authorities. 10. The Affidavits in the leading Writ Petition No. 59248 of 2005 had already been exchanged between the parties and, as such, all the learned Counsel made a request on 25.4.2007 that the matter be finally heard and disposed of at the admission stage itself as no further Affidavits are required to be filed. Accordingly, this Court proceeded to hear the matter on 27.4.2007 and 4.5.2007. 11. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel, for the Respondent Nos. Accordingly, this Court proceeded to hear the matter on 27.4.2007 and 4.5.2007. 11. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel, for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 11, who are the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10143 of 2006, has basically advanced three fold submissions. He contends that all these compassionate appointees were appointed as class-IV employees when they ought to have been appointed as Teachers keeping in view the Government Order dated 23.3.1990. He contends that the error in the appointment of these persons has been rectified by their subsequent appointment as Teachers according to the views expressed by the then Joint Director of Education in his letter dated 4.9.1997 and also in view of the decisions rendered by this Court upholding the aforesaid view indicated in the case of Rajesh Singh v. Director of Education, Allahabad and others, (1991) 1 UPLBEC 345, and a similar view being expressed by this Court in its decision in Sanjay Tyagi v. Director of Education and others, 1995 Allahabad Nirnay Patrika 121. Secondly, similar benefits had been extended to other candidates and, therefore, denying the same to the said candidates would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thirdly, once having been appointed as Teachers in the year 1997, their appointments could not have been cancelled pursuant to the directions of this Court after a lapse of 10 years of their service. Even otherwise, it is contended that even if the appointments were irregular, it would be too harsh to order their reversion as a class-IV employee for which Sri Saxena has relied on certain decisions that will be discussed later on. 12. Sri S.S. Tomar, learned Counsel for the Santosh Singh-the petitioner in the first writ petition, has urged that in the event this Court finds favour with the arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 11, as urged by Sri Saxena, then his client also deserves the same treatment and the respondents by denying it are violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. Sri K. Shahi, learned Counsel for Basic Education Officer and the learned Standing Counsel, have both urged that the order of the Director of Education (Basic) dated 6.2.2006 is based upon the correct position of law and that the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 13. Sri K. Shahi, learned Counsel for Basic Education Officer and the learned Standing Counsel, have both urged that the order of the Director of Education (Basic) dated 6.2.2006 is based upon the correct position of law and that the same does not call for any interference by this Court. They both contend that Santosh Singh cannot claim equality in illegality and even otherwise he could not have been appointed as a Teacher in 1992 inasmuch as his qualification on the date of his appointment was only class-VIII pass. It has been pointed from the records that Santosh Singh has passed his High School in the year 1993, Intermediate Examination in 1998 and Graduation in 2004 and, therefore, in view of this admitted position, the claim of Santosh Singh is not at par with the other candidates who all were qualified to be appointed as untrained Teachers on the date of their appointment as class-IV employees. 14. In rejoinder, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that it was not a case of any fraud or misrepresentation having been practised so as to get the benefit of appointment and that every thing was done in a transparent manner under the directions of the higher authorities. It has been further urged that all such candidates are almost more than 40 years of age and, therefore, it would be harsh to revert them back to the post of class-IV employees after 10 years of their services. 15. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the legal provisions involved in the issue, have to be taken notice of in order to examine the rival contentions. It is undisputed that all the claimants including the petitioners of both the writ petitions were claiming benefit of compassionate appointment on account of the death of their parents who died-in-harness while working as Teachers in Primary Institution established and managed under the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and the Rules framed thereunder read with the Government Orders prevalent in this regard from time to time. 16. The State Government had promulgated the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants Dying-in-harness Rules, 1974 under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Even though the said Rules were meant for Government servants yet it appears that the applicability thereof was extended as reflected in the Government Order dated 18.5.1981. 16. The State Government had promulgated the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants Dying-in-harness Rules, 1974 under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Even though the said Rules were meant for Government servants yet it appears that the applicability thereof was extended as reflected in the Government Order dated 18.5.1981. The said Government Order qualified the ban which had been imposed by the State Government for making appointment against class-IV post by carving out an exception to the effect that the ban shall not be applicable in respect of a compassionate appointment against a class-IV post. This Government Order reflects that the State Government made a provision for appointment on compassionate basis against class-IV post under the control of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board. This was further clarified by the Government Order dated 11.3.1983. Another Government Order was issued on 8.10.1984 followed by demi-official letters that were issued on 3.2.1989, 14.2.1989 and 11.1.1990 with intervening Government Orders of the year 1986. In supersession of all these Government Orders, a Government Order was issued on 23.3.1990 wherein provisions were made for appointment of claimants on compassionate basis to the post of untrained Assistant Teachers as well. 17. However, before proceeding to deal all the cases simultaneously, it has to be pointed out that Rama Shanker Lal Srivastava, who is petitioner No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 10143 of 2006 and Sri Tej Bahadur Singh, who is petitioner No. 8 therein, were initially appointed as class-IV employees on compassionate basis on 2.8.1986 and 6.2.1984 respectively whereas all the other petitioners have been appointed after the promulgation of the Government Order dated 23.3.1990. This distinction deserves to be noted inasmuch as when the appointment of Tej Bahadur Singh was made on 6.2.1984, then at that point of time the relevant Government Orders that were existing namely the Government Order dated 18.5.1981, 20.2.1982 and 11.3.1983 only provided for appointment as a class-IV employee and not as a Teacher. There is no provision for appointment as a Teacher in the said Government orders for the dependent of an employee under the Basic Education Board, who died-in-harness. In such a situation, so far as Tej Bahadur Singh is concerned, there was no option existing, when he was appointed, to claim a better appointment on the post of an Assistant Teacher. 18. In such a situation, so far as Tej Bahadur Singh is concerned, there was no option existing, when he was appointed, to claim a better appointment on the post of an Assistant Teacher. 18. Similarly, in the case of Rama Shanker Lal Srivastava, the said Government Orders coupled with the Government Order dated 8.10.1984 and Government Order dated 19.7.1986 was in existence as Rama Shanker Lal Srivastava was appointed on 2.8.1986. The Government order dated 8.10.1984 simply indicates that in case a candidate is qualified for being appointed as untrained Teacher then a preference shall be given to him against 25% post of Teachers subject to availability of a vacancy. In these Government Orders, there was also no right created in favour of a person to claim appointment as an Assistant Teacher on compassionate basis only a preference to the extent indicated therein was contemplated. 19. As pointed out herein above, all other candidates are claiming privilege of the Government Order dated 23.3.1990 which for the first time made a provision that claims of compassionate appointment can also been considered against the post of Assistant Teachers or against class-Ill or class-IV posts. This appointment was to be made subject to their possessing the requisite qualifications. Clause 2 of the said Government Order further provided that a person, who is appointed as an untrained Assistant teacher, shall have to obtain training within 5 years of his date of engagement compulsorily and only thereafter would he be entitled for appointment on regular basis. On the basis of the said Government Orders, the claim of the petitioners in both the writ petitions has to be examined. The said Government Orders do not indicate the availability of any such provision to the effect, that in the event a candidate has been appointed on compassionate basis against a class-IV post, he can be subsequently accommodated against a higher post on the basis of any protest or representation. The said Government Orders also do not indicate the existence of any power with the educational authorities to subsequently modify such appointments against a higher post under the garb of correcting an error or an alleged mistake in offering appointment. 20. In the instant case, the claim of Mohd. The said Government Orders also do not indicate the existence of any power with the educational authorities to subsequently modify such appointments against a higher post under the garb of correcting an error or an alleged mistake in offering appointment. 20. In the instant case, the claim of Mohd. Parvez Alam is to the effect that he had protested the matter before the authorities and a recommendation has been made in his favour for his appointment as a Teacher. Similarly, in the case of Chandra Mauli Tripathi, it is stated that a representation was made by him immediately upon appointment as a class-IV employee to extend him the benefit of appointment as an Assistant Teacher. The case of Chandra Mauli Tripathi was taken up first and it was processed and ultimately he was appointed as a Teacher on 9.9.1997 after having continued as a class-IV employee for almost 7 years. Quoting the example of similarly situated employees, Mohd. Parvez Alam approached the Director of Education and is stated to have obtained endorsement on his application calling upon the authorities to consider his claim. This application is dated 29.4.1997 and the endorsement contained thereon indicates that the Basic Education Officer, Kanpur, has been requested to enquire into the matter and do the needful keeping in view the Government Orders and the decisions of the High Court referred to therein. However, the said endorsements are on behalf of the Director of Education (Basic) by some person who is not the Director of Education (Basic). It appears that Mohd. Parvez Alam took the shelter of one Sri Buniyad Husain Ansari, a State Minister, who forwarded his application upon which one K.M. Awasthi, the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) through his letter dated 16.5.1997 forwarded it to the District Basic Education Officer. It appears that immediately upon the receipt of the said letter, Mohd. Parvez Alam was favoured with a fresh letter of appointment dated 17.5.1997 whereby his earlier appointment as a Class-IV employee was cancelled and he was extended the benefit of appointment as an untrained Teacher on a fixed scale of pay of Rs. 850/-. It appears that immediately upon the receipt of the said letter, Mohd. Parvez Alam was favoured with a fresh letter of appointment dated 17.5.1997 whereby his earlier appointment as a Class-IV employee was cancelled and he was extended the benefit of appointment as an untrained Teacher on a fixed scale of pay of Rs. 850/-. This was followed by the letter of the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, dated 4.9.1997 addressed to the Basic Education Officer, Kanpur, stating therein that there were 7 such other candidates, who had been appointed as class-IV employees and who ought to have been given the benefit of appointment as an Assistant Teacher. The said letter also indicated that in case such appointments are made, they will not fall within the category of a double benefit of compassionate appointment. Consequently, all these persons, who are the petitioners in writ petition No. 10143 of 2006, have been given appointments by cancelling their earlier appointment as class-IV employees and appointing them afresh as Assistant Teachers in the untrained fixed pay scale of Rs. 850/-. 21. The question is as to whether there was any justification for extending the benefits to all these persons after they had served as class-IV employees for 7 or more years. 22. As pointed out herein above, the Government Orders do not reflect any such power with the authorities to reassess the claim of compassionate appointments after a lapse of 7 or more years. It may be that one or two of them had protested against their appointments but a perusal of the Government Order dated 23.3.1990 does not indicate the existence of any such vested right which may oblige or compel the authorities to extend any such benefit. A heavy reliance has been placed by Sri P.N. Saxena on the decision in Rajesh Singh v. Director of Education, Allahabad and others, (1991) I UPLBEC 345. The said decision was in respect of a claim under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The decision is an authority to the effect that in case there was no vacancy available then a supernumerary post has to be created in order to accommodate such a claimant. The Court also observed that the said appointment should be made looking to his qualifications. The decision is an authority to the effect that in case there was no vacancy available then a supernumerary post has to be created in order to accommodate such a claimant. The Court also observed that the said appointment should be made looking to his qualifications. It was held that once an appointment is offered on compassionate basis, the post stands created by virtue of the provisions of the Rules itself. However, it was further directed that the appointment of the petitioner therein to the post of Peon would stand modified by promoting the petitioner therein as a Clerk. This decision has been followed in the case of Sanjay Tyagi v. Director of Education (supra), which was again a matter pertaining to an appointment in a school governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. A copy of the said decision together with the decision of Sunil Kumar Rai has been appended as Annexure-7 to the writ petition No. 10143 of 2006. The aforesaid decisions are in respect of claims of appointment in an Intermediate College for which there are a different set of Rules. They were not cases governed by the Government Order dated 23.3.1990 which is presently the case and which is a matter pertaining to an appointment in a primary institution governed by the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. As explained above, the said Government Order nowhere recites any such power available with the authorities to upgrade the appointments nor does the Government Order makes it obligatory on the authorities to accept such a claim against the post of a Teacher. Apart from Mohd. Parvez Alam and Chandra Mauli Tripathi, none of the claimants were able to demonstrate that they had ever protested against their appointment as a class-IV employees. As pointed out from the records, one of them was appointed in 1984 when there was no such Government Order in existence and the other was appointed in the year 1986. The rest of them did not even choose to protest and rather accepted these appointment against a class-IV post. 23. The Apex Court in the matters of compassionate appointment has held that compassionate appointments are intended to provide immediate benefit to the dependent of an employee who was the sole bread winner of his family and his death brings about a sort of destitution. 23. The Apex Court in the matters of compassionate appointment has held that compassionate appointments are intended to provide immediate benefit to the dependent of an employee who was the sole bread winner of his family and his death brings about a sort of destitution. Such appointments are not to be made treating it to be a vested right inasmuch as mere death is insufficient to constitute compassion for appointment. The rule of compassionate appointment is an exception as it is only a relief against destitution. It is only penurious conditions which justify such appointments. Reference may be had to the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , and followed in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and another, (1996) 8 SCC 23 . 24. The Apex Court has further held that a compassionate appointment cannot be made in disregard to Rules and no mandamus can issue against law. The Supreme Court has further held that even in harsh cases, their cannot be any place for sympathy as such appointments would militate against law. Reference may be had to the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambedkar (Mrs) and another, (1994) 2 SCC 718 , followed in 2007 AIR SCW 1044 (Paragraph No. 14). The Supreme Court has further proceeded now to rule that even the financial condition of the family has to be assessed and considered before proceeding to offer appointment on compassionate basis. Reference may be had to the case reported in (2004) 7 SCC 271 . 25. Considering a request for appointment on a better and a higher post, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, (1994) 6 SCC 560 , has held that once a compassionate appointment is made, the compassion comes to an end. The destitution does not continue thereafter so as to enable the authorities to make a second attempt to improve upon the situation by extending a better appointment. This view has also been expressed in another case of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali, (1994) 4 SCC 448 and has been followed by the Division Bench of our Court in Pankaj Swami v. Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and others, 2003(3) ESC 1268. This view has also been expressed in another case of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali, (1994) 4 SCC 448 and has been followed by the Division Bench of our Court in Pankaj Swami v. Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and others, 2003(3) ESC 1268. A learned Single Judge also following the said decisions, has expressed the same view in the case of Shyamadhar Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (2) ESC 824 (All). 26. Learned Counsel for the Basic Education Officer has also invited the attention of the Court to another decision reported in Manager, Committee of Management, Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Inter College, Kanpur v. Mahendra Kumar Shukla and others, (1994) 1 UPLBEC 12, which also rules to the same effect and rightly distinguishes the case of Rajesh Singh (supra) on facts which was relied on by the learned Counsel for the claimants. Learned Counsel for the Basic Education Officer has further invited the attention of the Court to the Division Bench judgment in the case of Abhimanyu Ratan Bhardwaj v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (1) ESC 663 (All) (DB), which also has held that the death of an employee does not confer such a status on a family, that a dependent can have a claim for a particular post, hierarchy or cadre. 27. Sri K. Shahi has urged that so far as this claim for improvement is concerned, is founded on the theory that the claimants have a right to be appointed commensurate to their qualifications. As pointed out herein above, the Government Order dated 23.3.1990 did not make any such provision. It has been pointed out that it was for the first time that by virtue of a Government Order issued on 2.2.1996 a provision was made that the appointment of a person on compassionate basis, shall as far as possible, be made against a post for which he holds the qualification, and in the same institution, subject to the availability of a vacancy, where the deceased employee was working. This Government Order, therefore, did not confer any benefit with retrospective effect to the claimants including the petitioners in both the writ petitions as they had already been appointed much prior to the enforcement of the said Government Order. 28. This Government Order, therefore, did not confer any benefit with retrospective effect to the claimants including the petitioners in both the writ petitions as they had already been appointed much prior to the enforcement of the said Government Order. 28. Applying the aforesaid principles in the judgments referred to hereinabove, it is evident that neither the Joint Director of Education nor any other higher authority had the power to re-open the claim of the petitioners in both the writ petitions nor did they have any authority to proceed to convert the appointments into that of Teachers under any law for the time being in force. The letter dated 4.9.1997 issued by the Joint Director of Education was patently without authority in law and he fell in error by observing that these cases would not fall within the category of double benefit. Viewed from any dimension, all the claimants have been accommodated as Teachers without there being any law to support the same. The action was patently unsustainable and, therefore, the plea that it was not a case of fraud or misrepresentation does not arise for consideration at all. This is not the case of either of the parties. The order dated 6.2.2006 clearly records the correct legal position and, therefore, this Court does not find any vested right which may entitle the claimants to continue as Assistant Teachers. They, having accepted the appointment as class-IV employees, their destitution had come to an end. An appointment on compassionate basis as already indicated herein above, is not an appointment of status or conferment thereto. The only object behind such appointment is to provide for immediate relief to the Members of the bereaved family and is not an alternative source of recruitment. 29. Having held so, the last argument raised on behalf of the claimants has to be considered, Sri P.N. Saxena has vehemently urged that these appointments have been cancelled after almost 10 years after the matter was directed to be probed into by this Court vide order dated 23.12.2005. It is evident from the records that when this Court issued orders in the present matter, the files pertaining to the appointments were all missing. It is evident from the records that when this Court issued orders in the present matter, the files pertaining to the appointments were all missing. It was only after the F.I.R. was lodged that it is now stated at the Bar that the files have been retrieved as they had been allegedly misplaced and were not available on account of shifting of office. This oral plea apart, Sri P.N. Saxena, learned senior Counsel, has been unable to justify the validity of the appointments as Assistant Teachers. His contention that it was only a mistake which has been rectified by the authorities, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, as already held herein above, there is no such power to rectify any such error by the authorities after a lapse of more than 7 years. The Supreme Court has held that an invalid appointment cannot be cured or rectified nor can it be regularized. Reference may be had to the said decision reported in 2006 AIR SCW 123 : 2006 (1) AWC 875. The claimants do not even have a legitimate expectation much less a right to continue as Assistant Teachers. As a matter of fact, their appointment has deprived a large number of persons, who could have been appointed had the post been offered to them. The claim of the petitioners if accepted would amount to opening an unending passage for back door entrance. In the instant case, this Court had given full opportunity to these claimants to defend their claim before the Director of Education (Basic), who after scrutiny of the claims, has rightly come to the conclusion that their appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers was invalid and against Rules. In the opinion of the Court, they did not deserve to be retained as Teachers. 30. Sri P.N. Saxena has then vehemently urged that all of them have continued for more than 10 years and he, after relying on certain decisions of this Court, has urged that even if there is an illegality in the appointment of the claimants, the same should not be disturbed after such a long passage of time. For this, he has relied on the decisions of this Court reported in (1991) 2 UPLBEC 120, 1994 All CJ 781 (para 3), (1993) 1 UPLBEC 745 (paras 12 & 13), 2005 (1) AWC 461 and 2004(1) ESC 624 (para 10). For this, he has relied on the decisions of this Court reported in (1991) 2 UPLBEC 120, 1994 All CJ 781 (para 3), (1993) 1 UPLBEC 745 (paras 12 & 13), 2005 (1) AWC 461 and 2004(1) ESC 624 (para 10). To the same effect are the decisions reported in (1993) 3 SCC 591 and the decision reported in (1991) 1 UPLBEC 250 (para 16). He further contends that all the claimants have almost reached the age of 40 years and, therefore, to revert them to the post of Peon would be unjust. Further reliance is placed on H.C. Puttu Swamy v. The Hon. Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, (1991) Supp. (2) SCC 421. 31. The aforesaid contention of Sri Saxena cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the very appointments by upgrading their status as Assistant Teachers after 7 years of their appointment as a class-IV employee was a patently illegal act. This action was clearly in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is unsustainable in law. Once the appointment itself was invalid, all these persons have to be retained as class-IV employees. The decisions relied upon by Sri Saxena are to the effect that in case an appointment which is illegal has been continued for long, should not culminate in the dispensation of the services of such appointees. In the instant case, the facts are substantially different inasmuch as here the claimants are retaining their original post of appointment on compassionate basis as class-IV employees. They are not being deprived of their right of appointment on compassionate basis. The illegality in the subsequent appointment as a Teacher cannot be cured by passage of time. Neither the Rules nor the Government Orders applicable contemplate any such up-gradation nor do they confer any power on the authority to do so. This being the position, it cannot be said that the appointments are being dislodged to the disadvantage of the appointees. As already indicated herein above, their status which they deserved under the law is being maintained under the impugned order dated 6.2.2006. Accordingly, the said order is upheld and all the petitioners are entitled to continue as class-IV employees only. 32. So far as Santosh Singh is concerned, he was not even qualified to be appointed as a Teacher on the date of his initial appointment in 1992. Accordingly, the said order is upheld and all the petitioners are entitled to continue as class-IV employees only. 32. So far as Santosh Singh is concerned, he was not even qualified to be appointed as a Teacher on the date of his initial appointment in 1992. In such circumstances, no right accrued in his favour to make any such appointment against a post of a Teacher. The writ petitions, therefore, do not call for any interference under Article 226 and are hereby dismissed. 33. This Court had passed orders on 23.12.2005 restraining the Basic Education Officer from making payment of salary as Assistant Teachers to the Respondent Nos. 3 to 9 in Writ Petition No. 49248 of 2005 who are the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10143 of 2006. Thus, they were not getting salary as Teachers since then for which a modification application has been filed in writ petition No. 10143 of 2006. Subsequent thereto, the orders were passed on 6.2.2006 by the Director cancelling the appointments of all the petitioners as Teachers and retaining them as class-IV employees. The said order was not stayed by this Court and consequently for all practical purposes since 23.12.2005 they have not received salary as Assistant Teacher and they have also not continued, as such, after passing of the order dated 6.2.2006. In such circumstances, it is directed that the salary which has been paid to these persons prior to the order of cancellation dated 6.2.2006 shall not be recovered. However, they shall not be entitled to any further salary as Teachers and shall only be entitled to receive salary as class-IV employees subject to the verification of their having actually worked as class-IV employees. 34. The writ petitions stand dismissed with the aforesaid observations. ————