ORDER : D. Hariparanthaman, J. The petitioner's father was working as a Watchman in the Government Press at Salem. He died on 21.6.2000, while he was in service. He left behind his wife, who is the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner and his younger brother and also the mother of the deceased government servant. Immediately after the death of the father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment in the year 2001 itself. The second respondent sent a letter dated 12.1.2005 informing the mother of the petitioner that the second respondent received the application from the mother of the petitioner for compassionate appointment through the third respondent and that no Government Order was received relating to compassionate appointment. It was stated therein that the claim for compassionate appointment of the mother of the petitioner would be considered only after receipt of the Government Order. Thereafter, the second respondent sent another letter dated 7.4.2005 that there was a ban on recruitment and thus the appointment under compassionate ground would be considered after lifting the ban, by the Government. 2. The second respondent again sent a letter dated 3.8.2006 to the mother of the petitioner directing her to appear on 14.8.2006 at 11.00 a.m., for a test to find out as to whether the mother of the petitioner had knowledge in Tamil for the purpose of providing compassionate appointment. While so, the third respondent, the Branch Manager, Government Branch Press, Salem, issued a letter dated 9.1.2008 that the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment would be considered, after the Special Committee decides about the requirement of the employees in the Directorate of Stationery and Printing Department. The letter of the third respondent is based on the letter of the second respondent dated 19.12.2007. 3. In the said circumstances, a representation was made by the mother of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The third respondent sent a letter dated 19.3.2009 directing the petitioner to appear before him to provide particulars relating to his claim for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, he appeared before the third respondent and provided particulars. 4. While so, the impugned order dated 1.7.2010 was passed by the second respondent stating that since the request for compassionate appointment for the mother of the petitioner was already rejected, the claim for compassionate appointment for the petitioner could not be considered. Accordingly, he appeared before the third respondent and provided particulars. 4. While so, the impugned order dated 1.7.2010 was passed by the second respondent stating that since the request for compassionate appointment for the mother of the petitioner was already rejected, the claim for compassionate appointment for the petitioner could not be considered. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 1.7.2010. 5. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations. The averments made in the counter affidavit are as follows: The second respondent has stated that the Government sent a letter dated 2.8.2007 rejecting the proposal of the second respondent dated 8.11.2006 for relaxing the rule to provide compassionate appointment to the mother of the petitioner. The fact of rejection was informed to the mother of the petitioner by the third respondent in the letter dated 9.1.2008. As per Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 120 dated 26.6.1995, the application for compassionate appointment shall be made within three years and since the application seeking compassionate appointment is made after the period of three years, the same is rejected. Already the claim for compassionate appointment for the mother of the petitioner was rejected and therefore, another claim for compassionate appointment for the petitioner is not maintainable. 6. Heard the learned counsels for both sides. 7. As stated above, the mother of the petitioner made application dated 7.11.2001 for compassionate appointment within a period of three years. The second respondent sent letters dated 12.1.2005 and 7.4.2005 that the claim for compassionate appointment for the mother of the petitioner could be considered after the lifting of the ban on recruitment, by the Government. 8. The second respondent issued the letter dated 3.8.2006 directing the mother of the petitioner to appear on 14.8.2006 at 11.00 a.m., for a test to find out the Tamil knowledge of the mother of the petitioner for the purpose of providing compassionate appointment to her. 9. The content of the translated version of the second respondent's letter dated 3.8.2006 is extracted hereunder. With regard to providing compassionate appointment to the legal heir of late Thiru R. Gopalan, the watchman, you may be requested to appear on 14.8.2006 at 11.00 a.m., before the Joint Director, Stationery and Printing Department, without fail, to test your Tamil knowledge. 10. Thereafter, there was no communication for two years. With regard to providing compassionate appointment to the legal heir of late Thiru R. Gopalan, the watchman, you may be requested to appear on 14.8.2006 at 11.00 a.m., before the Joint Director, Stationery and Printing Department, without fail, to test your Tamil knowledge. 10. Thereafter, there was no communication for two years. Only by the letter dated 9.1.2008, the third respondent informed the mother of the petitioner that the Government would decide about relaxing the rule relating to the qualification for compassionate appointment, only after the Special Committee decides the requirement of the employees of the Directorate of the Stationery and Printing Department. The said letter is based on the letter of the second respondent dated 19.12.2007. 11. The contents of the translated version of the letter of the third respondent dated 9.1.2008 are extracted hereunder. A note has been sent to the Government through Commissionerate with regard to the request of the wife of late Thiru R. Gopal, who had worked as a Watchman in the Government Branch Press, Salem, for compassionate appointment. As regards, it is informed to you that a letter has been received from the Government, wherein it was mentioned that the compassionate appointments would be provided to the legal heirs of the late Government servants only after the Special Committee decides about the requirement of the employees in the Stationery and Printing Department. Further, along with this letter, the original educational certificates of yours would be returned to you. Please give acknowledgment for receipt of this. 12. The letter of the second respondent dated 19.12.2007 referred to in the letter of the third respondent dated 9.1.2008 was not furnished to the mother of the petitioner. I am of the view that the letter was not outright rejection of the request of the mother of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, since in the letter dated 9.1.2008, it was stated that the Government was to decide with regard to compassionate appointment only after the Special Committee decides on the requirement of the employees of the Stationery and Printing Department. 13. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the Government issued a letter dated 2.8.2007 rejecting the proposal of the second respondent for relaxing the rule for providing compassionate appointment to the mother of the petitioner. However, the said letter of the Government dated 2.8.2007 was also not furnished to the petitioner. 13. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the Government issued a letter dated 2.8.2007 rejecting the proposal of the second respondent for relaxing the rule for providing compassionate appointment to the mother of the petitioner. However, the said letter of the Government dated 2.8.2007 was also not furnished to the petitioner. Even now, the said letter is not produced before this Court. The letter dated 9.1.2008 seems to refer to this letter of the Government. However, the date of the Government letter is not mentioned in the letter of the third respondent dated 9.1.2008. 14. In the letter of the third respondent, nowhere it was indicated that the Government rejected the proposal of the second respondent in unequivocal terms. The letter dated 9.1.2008 is extracted above and the same cannot be taken as outright rejection of the claim. Earlier, the second respondent sent a letter dated 3.8.2006 directing the mother of the petitioner to appear on 14.8.2006 at 11.00 a.m., before the Joint Director, Stationery and Printing Department for a test to find out as to whether the mother of the petitioner possessed Tamil Knowledge for the purpose of compassionate appointment. 15. In my view, as per Rule 5(2)(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Basic Service, for appointment in categories in class IV, the qualification prescribed is that the candidate must be able to read and write in Tamil. The requirement of the qualification of VIII standard is only for the appointment to the class IV in the Education Department as per Rule 5(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu basic service Rules. Therefore, the relaxation of the qualification was not necessary for the appointment of the mother of the petitioner in the second respondent Department. 16. In these circumstances, the second respondent has rightly called for the mother of the petitioner to find out as to whether the mother of the petitioner had knowledge to read and write in Tamil. However, it seems that the third respondent has sent a proposal dated 8.11.2006 to the first respondent seeking relaxation for educational qualification for providing appointment to the mother of the petitioner, on compassionate grounds. 17. As stated above, the Government order dated 2.8.2007 was not outright rejection, as per the letter of the third respondent dated 9.1.2008. In the said circumstances, a representation dated 7.3.2008 was made for appointment to the petitioner. 17. As stated above, the Government order dated 2.8.2007 was not outright rejection, as per the letter of the third respondent dated 9.1.2008. In the said circumstances, a representation dated 7.3.2008 was made for appointment to the petitioner. The same was rejected by the impugned order, as if the earlier application was rejected. 18. Since I have come to the conclusion that the earlier application for compassionate appointment of the mother of the petitioner was not rejected, in my view the impugned order was passed without application of mind and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. When the respondents neither provided compassionate appointment to the mother of the petitioner nor to the petitioner, the above said details make it clear that the respondents shall provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, particularly when the request was made at the earliest, in the year 2001 itself. The request was deferred on the ground that there was a ban on recruitment. Later, the mother of the petitioner was directed to appear to test the Tamil knowledge. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the second respondent is not correct in stating that the application was not filed within three years. For the above said reasons, the impugned order dated 1.7.2010 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.