JUDGMENT : V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. This writ appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Dindigul Corporation, challenging an order of the learned Judge, allowing the writ petition filed by the sixth respondent herein and directing the Corporation to provide compassionate appointment to 25 persons. 2. Heard Mr. J.Lawrance, learned Counsel for the appellant. Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. Ms.A.Rajini, learned Counsel takes notice for the sixth respondent. 3. The sixth respondent's mother who was employed as a sanitary worker in the appellant Corporation died in harness on 17.10.2010. She made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. It appears that several persons who had claimed appointment on compassionate grounds and who were placed on par with the sixth respondent had also made applications for appointment. By the proceedings dated 10.04.2015, the Commissioner of the Corporation appears to have sent a proposal to the Commissioner of Municipal Administration for considering the cases of 25 candidates for appointment on compassionate grounds. But the same is still pending. 5. In the meantime, the Corporation Council passed a resolution in a meeting held on 30.11.2015, resolving to out-source the work of anitation to outside agencies. Immediately, the sixth respondent came up with a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.21500 of 2015. The prayer made by the sixth respondent in the writ petition, is as follows: "Therefore it is prayed this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned resolution No.32 of the 3rd respondent council meeting held on 30.11.2015 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner and 24 other sweepers as per the recommendation of the 4th respondent through his proceedings Na.Ka.No.6720/2014/H2, dated 10.04.2015 for compassionate appointment within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court and pass any other appropriate order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and thus render justice." 6. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition, by an order dated 02.12.2015. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows: "3. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition, by an order dated 02.12.2015. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows: "3. In these circumstances, a direction is issued to the respondents 1, 2 and 4, to provide compassionate appointment as per the proposal of the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.6720/2014/H2 dated 10.04.2015 and without providing compassionate appointment to the twenty five persons, the aforesaid respondents cannot in any manner proceed with the fresh recruitment, to fill up any vacancies or to take Sweepers through outsourcing. It is made clear that the 4th respondent could take new Sweepers, either directly or through outsourcing, only after providing compassionate appointment to those 25 persons mentioned in the proceedings dated 10.04.2015." 7. It is against the aforesaid order, the Corporation is before us. 8. At the outset, the case of the sixth respondent was that she is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore she should have confined the prayer in her writ petition only to her own appointment. Unfortunately, she asked for appointment on compassionate grounds not only for herself but also for 24 others. This is the mistake that the sixth respondent committed. 9. The learned Judge went one step further and directed the Corporation not to outsource the job to third party contractors, which was not even the prayer made in the main writ petition. Therefore we are of the view that the order of the learned Judge, directing the appointment on compassionate grounds to persons other than the sixth respondent and the direction to the Corporation not to outsource, could not have been granted. Hence those portions are liable to be set aside. 10. Insofar as the sixth respondent is concerned, admittedly her mother died on 17.10.2010. The sixth respondent has passed the 8th Standard. Her mother was only a sanitary worker. The case had already been examined by the Commissioner and a proposal made to the Commissioner of Municipal Administration in Na.Ka.No.6720/2014/H2, dated 10.04.2015. 11. Therefore the writ appeal is partly allowed, setting aside the two directions issued by the learned Judge, namely, (i) to appoint those persons other than the sixth respondent and (ii) not to outsource the job. The case had already been examined by the Commissioner and a proposal made to the Commissioner of Municipal Administration in Na.Ka.No.6720/2014/H2, dated 10.04.2015. 11. Therefore the writ appeal is partly allowed, setting aside the two directions issued by the learned Judge, namely, (i) to appoint those persons other than the sixth respondent and (ii) not to outsource the job. But insofar as the direction of the learned Judge to appoint the sixth respondent is concerned, the said direction is confirmed and the appellant is directed to pass orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is given to the other candidates to independently agitate their cases. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.