JUDGMENT : Chitra Venkataraman, J. This writ appeal is filed as against the order of this Court dated 12.4.2011 made in W.P. (MD) No. 3726 of 2009, wherein the writ petitioner/first respondent herein, sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the fifth respondent herein, viz., the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, dated 11.3.2009 and direct the appellant herein to give suitable job to the writ petitioner on compassionate basis commensurate with her qualification in the appellant-Bank. It is seen from the narration of the facts in the writ petition that the first respondent's husband-Sivanandam was working as Clerk on permanent basis in the appellant-Cooperative Bank; he was originally appointed as Attender on 23.3.1988 on the basis of his education qualification, viz. S.S.L.C. Thereafter, he acquired Diploma in Cooperative Examination in the year 1995 and M.A. (Public Administration) in the year 2000. On 1.9.1997, he was promoted as Clerk. While he was in service, he died on 1.7.2005. The writ petitioner/the first respondent herein, sought for appointment on compassionate ground. Such request was rejected on the ground that the first respondent's husband's appointment was irregular. Hence, the writ petition was filed before this Court. Learned single Judge pointed out that the first respondent's husband was appointed as early as in the year 1988 as Attender and was promoted in the year 1997 as Clerk and those facts were not disputed by the appellant herein in the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition, and at this distant point of time after a lapse of several years, it is not open to the appellant herein to contend that the first respondent's husband's appointment was irregular by stating that he was not routed through Employment Exchange. Learned single Judge pointed out that the claim of the first respondent for compassionate appointment could not be denied solely on the above ground that the first respondent's husband's appointment was irregular. Under the circumstances, the learned single Judge directed the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Virudhunagar District to consider the appointment of the first respondent on compassionate ground, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of the writ Court. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ appeal has been filed, at the instance of the Bank. 2. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ appeal has been filed, at the instance of the Bank. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant herein disputed the claim of the first respondent that the deceased was appointed on permanent basis and that he was holding the post of Clerk at the time of demise. Pointing out to the fact that even as early as in the year 1988 the first respondent's husband was appointed only as Attender and that too, on temporary basis, the learned counsel contended that since the appointment was irregular, not being routed through Employment Exchange, proceedings were initiated as against those who were responsible for making such irregular appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the first respondent pointed out to the benefits derived by the first respondent's husband while he was in service, towards meeting the education expenses of his children and also the Provident Fund and other benefits granted to the deceased while he was in service. He also pointed out to the recommendation made to regularise the services of the deceased and three others, and submitted that, considering the aforesaid admitted fact that there was a proposal to regularise the services of the deceased apart from three others, and the number of years of service the deceased had put in, in the Bank, the learned single Judge set aside the order of the fifth respondent herein rejecting to appoint the first respondent on compassionate ground. 4. We affirm the reasons given by the learned single Judge that the claim of the writ petitioner cannot be rejected on the hypertechnical ground that the writ petitioner's husband's services were not regularised in spite of recommendation. Even though learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was working as Attender at the time of his death, yet, the letters written by the deceased to the Bank shows that he was working as Clerk at the time of his demise. In the light of the above facts, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition is confirmed and the writ appeal is dismissed. In the light of the above facts, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition is confirmed and the writ appeal is dismissed. Directions are hereby issued to the appellant-Bank and the fifth respondent herein to consider the case of the writ petitioner/first respondent herein for suitable appointment in the appellant-Bank, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Consequently, M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2011 is closed. No costs.