JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner's husband, who served as Helper in the North Chennai Thermal Power Station, Chennai, died on 23.01.2002 due to illness, leaving behind his father, mother, two sons and one daughter. After the death of her husband, she immediately submitted her application on 23.11.2004 to the third respondent. But, the third respondent, by proceedings dated 11.02.2005, returned the application on the ground that she did not have minimum educational qualification of 8th standard pass as per the Board rules. Thereafter, with a great difficulty, the petitioner, as a private candidate, studied and completed the 8th standard successfully on 16.12.2005. After the receipt of the mark sheet, the petitioner, again, made her representation on 13.03.2006 to the third respondent requesting for appointment on compassionate ground. But, the second respondent rejected her claim for compassionate appointment, by order dated 29.04.2006, holding that she had not completed the 8th standard within three years from the date of death of her husband. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner made her application on 23.11.2004 to the third respondent, by proceedings dated 11.02.2005, the third respondent returned her application on the ground that the petitioner did not have minimum educational qualification of pass in 8th standard as per the Board Rules, for getting compassionate appointment. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner, as a private candidate, took effort and came out successfully by passing 8th standard on 16.12.2005. Therefore, she has made another representation dated 13.03.2006 to the third respondent renewing her request for compassionate appointment. On submission of her representation, she was waiting with fond hope to get a favourable order, since she has acquired the requisite educational qualification. But, the second respondent rejected her claim on 29.04.2006, by repeating the same reason that the petitioner had not passed 8th standard within three years from the date of death of her husband. On submission of her representation, she was waiting with fond hope to get a favourable order, since she has acquired the requisite educational qualification. But, the second respondent rejected her claim on 29.04.2006, by repeating the same reason that the petitioner had not passed 8th standard within three years from the date of death of her husband. At this juncture, he further contented that the reasoning given by the first respondent in the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner for getting compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner has filed the application at a belated stage, is illegal and unsustainable, for the reason that the Board Proceedings No.46, dated 13.10.1995, passed by the respondents Board states that any person seeking compassionate appointment on the death of the breadwinner in his family, should file an application within three years from the date of death of his father/mother. Therefore, in view of the above said proceedings, he contended that the respondents ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner. 3. Further, it was submitted that when the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent against the order passed by the second respondent dated 29.04.2006, the first respondent also failed to consider the plight of the petitioner. Challenging the same, when a writ petition in W.P.No.7077 of 2009 was filed, this Court, by order dated 20.04.2009, passed an order holding that it is not fair on the part of the second respondent to reject the application of the petitioner on the ground that the requisite qualification was not acquired within 3 years. Moreover, for the post of Sweeper, no educational qualification is required, except the person concerned possesses the ability to read and write. However, in the present case, the petitioner has already acquired the minimum educational of pass in 8th standard, therefore, the first respondent ought not to have rejected her appeal on 28.02.2009. 4. He, further, submitted that, in a similar circumstances, when a writ petition in W.P.No.1335 of 2006 was filed against the very same Electricity Board, a Single Judge in Madurai Bench, directed the Electricity Board to give suitable employment to the petitioner therein. Subsequently, the Electricity Board has appointed a similarly placed person, namely, V.Jaya, as Helper on compassionate ground. 4. He, further, submitted that, in a similar circumstances, when a writ petition in W.P.No.1335 of 2006 was filed against the very same Electricity Board, a Single Judge in Madurai Bench, directed the Electricity Board to give suitable employment to the petitioner therein. Subsequently, the Electricity Board has appointed a similarly placed person, namely, V.Jaya, as Helper on compassionate ground. Whileso, the respondent cannot take a different stand against the petitioner, when the petitioner submitted her application within three years from the date of death of her husband. With the aforesaid submissions, he prayed for allowing the present writ petition. 5. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that admittedly, the petitioner, at the time of filing of her application on 23.11.2004 before the third respondent, did not possess the minimum educational qualification, therefore, her application was rejected. Subsequently, she completed 8th standard on 16.12.2005. Since she qualified 8th standard only after three years from the date of death of her husband, the respondents are right in rejecting her claim on the basis of Board Proceedings No.46, dated 13.10.1995, and on that basis, he pleaded for dismissal of the present writ petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. First of all, it is pertinent to note a judgment relied upon by the learned counsel petitioner in the case of Superintending Engineer, Madurai, Vs. V.Jaya reported in (2007) 6 MLJ 1011 , wherein the facts of the case are very similar, as that of the present one. For better appreciation, it is useful to refer to paragraph 2.1 of the above said case. "2.1. The writ petitioner's husband died on 05.10.1999 while he was discharging his duty as a Helper in the respondent Electricity Board. she applied for appointment on compassionate ground 15.11.2000, but the same was rejected on the ground that she did not possess the minimum educational qualification, namely a pass in 8th standard. The hapless widow/the writ petitioner again applied for employment on compassionate ground, but her request was turned down once again on the same ground by the proceedings of the respondent dated 07.03.2002. The writ petitioner therefore passed 8th standard examination on private studies in December, 2004 and again applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The hapless widow/the writ petitioner again applied for employment on compassionate ground, but her request was turned down once again on the same ground by the proceedings of the respondent dated 07.03.2002. The writ petitioner therefore passed 8th standard examination on private studies in December, 2004 and again applied for appointment on compassionate ground. But, the respondent, by his proceedings dated 03.06.2005, rejected the request of the writ petitioner on the ground that she had not submitted her application within three years from the date of death of her husband." In the above said case, the learned Division Bench, by considering the various judgments of the Apex Court, came to the conclusion that there cannot be any dispute as to the proposition advanced by Electricity Board that neither the Board nor any authority, much less the State, can be compelled to fill-up any appointment on compassionate ground de hors the provisions of the scheme in force governed by Rules and Guidelines. While holding so, it was further held that any rigid approach or too technical objections may defeat the very object of the scheme. On that basis, it was held that the authorities are expected to act as a Good Samaritan overlooking the cobwebs of technicalities. 7. In line with the facts of the case as referred to above, even in the case on hand, the petitioner, being a widow, has approached the respondents as early as on 23.11.2004, i.e. within three years from the date of death of her husband; but her request was turned down on the ground that she lacked the minimum educational qualification, namely a pass in 8th standard. Hence, she also completed her 8th standard and again renewed her request on 13.03.2006. But, this time also her request was rejected on 29.04.2006 on the ground that she did not apply within three years from the date of death of her husband, with a requisite educational qualification. 8. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent, who also, by order dated 28.02.2009, rejected her appeal. As against that, when the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7077/09, this Court, by order dated 20.04.2009, disposed of the writ petition with the following observation:- "6. AT the outset, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner made a representation for appointment on compassionate grounds, within three years. As against that, when the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7077/09, this Court, by order dated 20.04.2009, disposed of the writ petition with the following observation:- "6. AT the outset, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner made a representation for appointment on compassionate grounds, within three years. The application is rejected in the first instance only on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the qualification of a pass in 8th standard. But, after the petitioner got qualified, it is not fair on the part of the second respondent to reject the application on the ground that the qualification was not acquired within three years." When this Court has already held that the petitioner, within three years from the date of death of her husband, has made her representation for appointment on compassionate ground and therefore, it is not fair on the part of the second respondent to reject her claim, the first respondent, without looking into the order passed by this Court, wrongly rejected her claim. 9. Further, the Board Proceedings No.46, dated 13.10.1995, contemplates three years time for filing application from the date of death of the breadwinner. Therefore, in the present case, if we apply the first condition adumbrated in the said Board Proceeding, the petitioner has rightly submitted her application within three years, of course, without possessing the requisite qualification, namely, a pass in 8th standard. But, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the post of Sweeper, no educational qualification is required, except to have the knowledge of read and write. Yet again, she has also acquired her 8th standard pass, hence, her request cannot be rejected. 10. Therefore, this Court, for the foregoing reasons, while quashing the impugned order dated 29.08.2009 passed by the first respondent, direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for a suitable post in their department, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. In the result, the present writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid directions. No Costs.