JUDGMENT Irshad Ali, J. Heard Anas Sherwani, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Rahul Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. 2. None has put in appearance for the respondent no.2 in spite of notice issued to the respondent no.2. 3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.9.2007 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) with further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim and give appointment on compassionate grounds on Class IV post. 4. Factual matrix of the case is that father of the petitioner died while in service working on the post of Assistant Teacher in the School. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner he was getting scale of trained teacher. The petitioner is fully dependent on his father. The petitioner had completed intermediate education at the time of death of his father and moved application on 9.5.2002 for giving appointment on compassionate grounds. The application of the petitioner was received by the Manager of the School and was duly forwarded to the respondent no.1 where the application was received on 11.9.2002. The petitioner also submitted his application on prescribed format, but nothing was done by the District Basic Education Officer on his application. When the respondents did not consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.1432 (SS) of 2007 before this Court. Vide order dated 21.3.2007 this Court directed the respondent no.1 to pass an order for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner, due to non-compliance of the said order, filed Contempt Petition No.1869 of 2007 in which notice was issued to District Basic Education Officer (respondent no.1) fixing 24.9.2007. The District Basic Education Officer has now passed an order on 21.9.2007 whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the institution in question was brought within purview of Payment of Salaries Act, 1978 with effect from 1.12.2006 and the father of the petitioner died on 10.12.2001, therefore the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered for the grant of appointment on compassionate ground. 5. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the assumption drawn by the District Basic Education Officer is wholly erroneous in nature. The institution is recognized under the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and teachers and other employees are granted appointment after due approval of the District Basic Education Officer in the institution. The institution if taken grant-in-aid list, the liability for the payment of salary arose on the shoulder of the State Authority. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the impugned order is wholly illegal and is liable to be quashed by this Court. There is no rider under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 or there is any provision under the Basic Education Act to make appointment on compassionate ground in case the institution is not receiving aid from the State Government. He next submits that the impugned order dated 21.9.2007 is per se illegal and cannot be sustained and therefore, is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Shri. Rahul Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.1, in support of the impugned order, submits that the same does not suffer from infirmity or illegality and is just and valid order. He next submits that the institution was not receiving aid from the State Government, therefore under bonafide belief the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that no appointment can be made in the institution which is not receiving aid from the State Government. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 next submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be set aside with heavy cost. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. On perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the only ground has been taken in the impugned order that father of the petitioner died on 10.12.2001 and the institution was brought within the purview of Payment of Salaries Act with effect from 1.12.2006, therefore the institution being not received aid from the State Government no appointment on compassionate ground can be made. It is also evident that the District Basic Education Officer has recorded no finding in regard to grant of approval to the appointment made in the institution duly recognized under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and provision of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment And Conditions Of Service Of Teachers) Rules, 1978 does not contain bar in making compassionate appointment in case institution is not receiving aid from the State Government. 11. The compassionate appointment in the Primary School as well as in the Junior Basic School is made under the Government Order adopting the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. The Government Order does not create any discrimination amongest the claims raised by the candidates whether the institution is receiving aid from the State Government or it is recognized institution under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. It is not the case of the District Basic Education Officer that the institution was not recognized under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 at the relevant point of time. Mere bringing the institution on the grant-in-aid list with effect from 1.12.2006 does not bar the claim of the petitioner for being considered for the appointment on compassionate grounds. 12. Considering the fact that the impugned order does not record cogent reason in rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 21.9.2007 is hereby quashed. The District Basic Education Officer, Barabanki is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for the appointment on compassionate grounds in the light of the observations made above and appropriate order in this regard shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.