JUDGMENT : YASHWANT VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner has claimed appointment on compassionate grounds consequent to the death of her husband who died while working as an Officiating Principal and Superintendent of the Regional Ayurvedic College and Hospital on 30 July 2016. 3. The respondents while acceding to the request of the petitioner have offered her an appointment against a class IV post and have placed reliance upon a Government Order dated 18 May 2017 in terms of which it is stated that presently there is a ban imposed by the State against appointment on compassionate grounds on Group-C posts. The issue itself has arisen since the petitioner in terms of her qualification as held had prayed for being offered a Group-C post. This prayer has been denied by the order impugned. 4. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court finds itself unable to sustain the impugned order for the following reasons. 5. Undisputedly Rule 5 of the 1974 Rules obliged the respondents to grant "suitable employment" to the widow or surviving member of the family of the deceased Government servant. The expression "suitable employment" has been interpreted in innumerable decisions of this Court as placing an obligation on the State to bear in mind the qualifications which are possessed by the dependent of the deceased Government servant. As this Court reads the impugned order, it is evident that this aspect has not been considered at all. Insofar as the objection with respect to a ban operating on appointment on compassionate grounds on a Group-C post is concerned, the Court only notes that the Full Bench in Shiv Kumar Dubey and Others Vs. State of U.P. [ 2014 (2) ADJ 312 ] had clearly held that non availability of a post cannot be a ground to refuse appointment. The ultimate principles which were culled out by the Full Bench in Shiv Kumar Dube have been duly circulated amongst all concerned respondents in terms of a Government Order dated 17 June 2014. 6. Before this Court it is also not disputed that in case a vacant post is not available, in terms of the provisions of the 1974 Rules the respondents are obliged to appoint the dependent of a deceased Government servant on a supernumerary post. 6. Before this Court it is also not disputed that in case a vacant post is not available, in terms of the provisions of the 1974 Rules the respondents are obliged to appoint the dependent of a deceased Government servant on a supernumerary post. Consequently the Court is of the considered view that even if the Government Order of 18 May 2017 were to operate and restrained the respondents from appointing the petitioner on a Group-C post, there appears to be no fetter upon their obligation to consider offering her suitable appointment on a supernumerary post. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that she is not claiming any particular post in the Group-C cadre and she would be satisfied if her claim for appointment on a suitable post commensurate with the qualifications held by her is taken into consideration by the respondents. 8. Accordingly and in light of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31 January 2019 is quashed. The mater shall in consequence stand remitted to the second respondent who shall reconsider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and bearing in mind the observation made hereinabove. The entire exercise shall be concluded with expedition and in any case within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.