JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Shri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivatava holding brief of Shri P.K. Srivastava for the respondent No. 6 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the orders passed by the authorities dated 10.9.2009 and 13.10.2009 calling upon the petitioner Committee of Management to allow the respondent No. 6 to function as Routine Grade Clerk in the institution under the Compassionate Appointment Rules. The Committee of Management has questioned the said orders on two grounds namely that the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 is not in accordance with the provisions of the Government Order dated 21st November, 1995, copy whereof is annexure 9 to the writ petition and secondly that the post in question could not have been offered to a Schedule Caste Category candidate, inasmuch as, the said quota is not available for being filled up in that category. 3. It appears that the father of the respondent No. 6 namely Shri Budh Prakash was working as a gardener in Munnalal and Jainarain Khemka Girls College Saharanpur, where he died in harness. According to the Government Order dated 21st November, 1995 appointment on compassionate basis in Degree Colleges has to be made after a selection to be held by the Committee so constituted under the said Government order. The Committee under Clause 4 of the said Government Order comprises of the Director of Higher Education, the Accounts Officer in the office of the Regional Higher Education Officer and the concerned Principal of the degree college. 4. This Court had called upon the learned Standing Counsel vide order dated 4.11.2009 to clarify as to what is the meaning of the word “concerned Principal” as referred to in Clause 4 of the said Government Order. Shri K.K. Chand, learned Standing Counsel has produced the instructions received from the Director of Higher Education dated 7th November, 2009, where it has been stated that the Principal of the concerned institution means that institution where the deceased employee was working or the institution where the appointment is proposed. Shri K.K. Chand, learned Standing Counsel has produced the instructions received from the Director of Higher Education dated 7th November, 2009, where it has been stated that the Principal of the concerned institution means that institution where the deceased employee was working or the institution where the appointment is proposed. 5.The petitioners have taken a clear case that the aforesaid provisions of the Government Order, which requires the constitution of the Committee with the Principal as a member of the said Committee, has not been followed and the appointment has been made directly. An affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the petitioners clearly stating therein that an information has been received from the institution where the deceased employee was working that the Principal of the said institution was never intimated of the constitution of the Committee for considering the appointment on compassionate basis of the son of the deceased employee. In paragraph 34 of the present writ petition it has been categorically stated that the Committee was neither constituted nor was the Principal of the petitioners institution invited to participate in any such selection. 6. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in view of the aforesaid fundamental infirmity of the selection committee the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 is unsustainable. He further submits that policy of reservation, which is sought to be applied, has not been correctly construed, and had the petitioner Committee been given an opportunity it would have explained the position of reservation existing in the institution in respect of Class-III posts. 7. It has been submitted finally that the entire action is in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the orders issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 and the impugned herein deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 contends that, as a matter of fact, the said respondent is not aware of the aforesaid fact as to whether any compliance of the Government Order dated 21.11.1995 was made or not, and he being the dependant of the deceased employee was satisfied with the appointment letter which has been issued. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 contends that, as a matter of fact, the said respondent is not aware of the aforesaid fact as to whether any compliance of the Government Order dated 21.11.1995 was made or not, and he being the dependant of the deceased employee was satisfied with the appointment letter which has been issued. 9. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that the issue as to whether the Committee was constituted properly or not can be examined by the Regional Director of Higher Education, who is the authority competent to look into the grievance of the petitioner. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, learned counsel agree that the writ petition be disposed of at this stage finally without awaiting for further affidavits and the matter be got resolved through an appropriate order passed by the respondent No. 5. 11. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 5 to consider the grievance of the petitioner Committee in the light of the submissions as noticed hereinabove and proceed to pass an appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 6 as well as calling for comments from the District Inspector of Schools. The order shall be passed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the said respondent. 12. Till such orders are passed by the Regional Higher Education Officer, the petitioner Committee of Management shall not be compelled to comply with the orders dated 10.9.2009 and 13.10.2009. ————