JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal as the matter lies in narrow compass. 2. Heard both sides. The husband of the petitioner was working as Secondary Grade Assistant in the 4th respondent school. He died in a road accident while he was in service on 12.9.2008. In the circumstances, the 4th respondent school appointed the petitioner as B.T. Assistant on compassionate ground in the regular vacancy that was caused due to the death of her husband, by an order dated 26.11.2009. The 4th respondent school submitted a proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner on 30.11.2009 and later a revised proposal on 29.3.2012. 3. In the revised proposal, it is stated that the husband of the petitioner was working as Secondary Grade Assistant from June, 2001. He died on 12.9.2008 in the road accident leaving behind the petitioner and a daughter of tender years in a helpless state. The school interviewed and found her fit for appointment as Junior Grade Assistant teacher. She was appointed on compassionate ground in the vacancy. Hence the 4th respondent sought approval of her appointment. But, the request of the 4th respondent was rejected by the impugned order, dated 10.4.2012 of the third respondent. This writ petition is to quash the aforesaid order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the only reason given in the impugned order is that at the time when the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground, the school was under direct payment system. It is submitted that the right to appoint teachers vest with the school management. Therefore, the third respondent was not correct in rejecting the application seeking approval on the ground that the school was under direct payment system. 5. I am in entire agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the impugned order, the only reason given by the third respondent was that the school was under direct payment system. In my view, that cannot be a reason to refuse the approval for appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant. It is not the case of the third respondent that the petitioner does not possess requisite qualifications and no other infirmity is pointed out. 6. In my view, that cannot be a reason to refuse the approval for appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant. It is not the case of the third respondent that the petitioner does not possess requisite qualifications and no other infirmity is pointed out. 6. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of his order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.