JUDGMENT : Dr. S.N. Pathak, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the Office Order dated 04.08.2007 issued under the signature of respondent No. 8 whereby the representation of the petitioner for converting her post from Group D to Group C has been rejected by the respondents department. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to convert the post of the petitioner from Group-D to Group-C as per the office order dated 12.07.2000 passed by the respondent No. 6, wherein sanction and approval was given for appointment of the petitioner in Grade “C” FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The brother of the petitioner, who was granted compassionate appointment after the death of his father, died on 23.08.1996, just after one year from the date of his appointment. After the death of her brother, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. At the time of making such application, the petitioner was unmarried and had completed her Post Graduation. Although the respondents assured the petitioner that her application will be considered very soon but after lapse of four years, the respondent Department finally gave approval for her appointment in Grade-C. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the year 1996 and her selection for appointment was made in the year 1997, however, in the name of technical formalities, her case was kept pending and several other persons who had applied later and were below to the petitioner in the list, were given appointment on Group-C cadre. 4. Thereafter, after a long gap of four years, the respondents vide their letter dated 12.07.2000 gave approval for appointment of the petitioner in Group-C cadre and her appointment was confirmed in Bihar Telecom Circle. It is the further case of the petitioner that just after two months of service, vide letter dated 18.09.2000, the petitioner was asked to give an undertaking forfeiting her claim in the cadre of Group-C on the ground that there was no vacancy in Group-C category. Soon after receipt of the said letter, the petitioner approaches the Ministry of Communication and narrated the entire story and the subsequent pressure being given by the respondents for giving option for appointment on Group-D cadre. Soon after receipt of the said letter, the petitioner approaches the Ministry of Communication and narrated the entire story and the subsequent pressure being given by the respondents for giving option for appointment on Group-D cadre. The Ministry of Telecom advised the petitioner to give her appointment for Group-D cadre and assured that as soon as Group-C post will be available, her case will be considered for accommodation against Group-C post and to that effect, the concerned Ministry also wrote letter dated 23.09.2000, to the Telecom Circle, Bihar. Thereafter, left with no option the petitioner submitted her option for appointment for Group-D post on 25.09.2000. 5. Thereafter, vide letter dated 28.09.2000, the respondents directed the petitioner to furnish the necessary documents for appointment in Group-D post. Along with the said letter the respondents have annexed the list of selected candidates wherein, the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No. 45. The petitioner unwillingly agreed to work in the cadre of Group-D and made several representations before the concerned authorities to place her in the cadre of Group-C. Subsequently, when vacancies arose in Group-C and she was already performing her duties of Group-C apart from her routine job under Group-D, she was hoping that the respondents will consider her case for promotion to the grade of Group-C. It is the case of the petitioner that to the best of his knowledge, one Rashmi Tiwari has been given compassionate appointment in Group ‘C’ cadre in the year 2001, whereas, the same claim of the petitioner was rejected solely on the ground that there was no vacancy available in Group-‘C’. 6. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been denied her lawful right of working in the Grade-C cadre which was approved by the respondents themselves and the action of the respondents in forcefully compelling her to sign the undertaking for converting the post of Group-C to Group-D, is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. The action of the respondents of ignoring the rightful claim of the petitioner seeking her appointment in the cadre of Group-C which was accepted by the respondent vide office order dated 12.07.2000 and the same was even approved by the respondent No. 2, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The action of the respondents of ignoring the rightful claim of the petitioner seeking her appointment in the cadre of Group-C which was accepted by the respondent vide office order dated 12.07.2000 and the same was even approved by the respondent No. 2, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The respondents have ignored and not accepted the recommendations made by the office of Ministry of Communication dated 23.09.2000, which is bad and against the settled rules and regulations. The action of the respondents in considering the case of one Rashmi Tiwari for out of turn compassionate appointment against a Grade-C post and rejecting the claim of the present petitioner is highly discriminatory and against the rules of natural justice and equality. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have acted against the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 1992 SC 1348 , wherein it was held that any undertaking signed will not bar the applicants from further participation. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Though no counter-affidavit has been filed but Mr. B.K. Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in the interest of justice as the counter-affidavit has been filed in W.P.(S). No. 7714 of 2012, of which the facts are same and similar, the same may be treated as counter-affidavit filed in this case also. 8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the action of the respondents ignoring the rightful claim of the petitioner seeking her appointment in Group-C post, which was accepted by the respondents themselves vide order dated 12.07.2000 and the same was even approved by the respondent no. 2, is not tenable in the eyes of law. In the instant case also one Rashmi Tiwari has been considered for out of turn appointment against Grade-C and rejecting claim of the present petitioner, is discriminatory and against the principle of natural justice. 9. 2, is not tenable in the eyes of law. In the instant case also one Rashmi Tiwari has been considered for out of turn appointment against Grade-C and rejecting claim of the present petitioner, is discriminatory and against the principle of natural justice. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I hereby quash and set aside the Office Order dated 04.08.2007, issued under the signature of respondent No. 8, whereby the representation for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner regarding conversion of the post of the petitioner from Group-D to Group-C as per Office Order dated 12.07.2000, has been rejected. Needless to say that after reconsideration, if the petitioner’s case falls under Group-C cadre, where sanction and approval was given to the petitioner, the benefits of the same shall be rendered to her with all consequential benefits. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.