JUDGMENT : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services(Home) appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Memo No.634- P/Ser.II/A2/2019-2, dt. 06.05.2022 issued by the 1 st respondent rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds intimating the same through the 3 rd respondent in its Memorandum File No.A1-COMP.APPT/172/2022, dt. 09.05.2023 without assigning any reasons as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently by setting aside the Impugned Memo No.634-P/Ser.II/A2/2019-2, dt. 06.05.2022 and the intimation Memo issued by the 3 rd respondent vide File No.A1- COMP.APPT/172/2022, dt. 09.05.2023, direct the respondents to forthwith consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment in any suitable post on compassionate grounds on par with the similar candidates who were considered and appointed by the 1 st respondent vide Memo No.334- P/Ser.II/A2/2017, dt. 17.06.2017 and under G.O.Rt.No.411, dt. 07.11.2014 in the interest of Justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the father of the petitioner, who was working as a Police Constable, died on 08.05.2014 due to ill health while in service. The petitioner, being a divorced and unemployed daughter, submitted an application dated 13.02.2019 for compassionate appointment to the respondents. Respondent No.2 recommended her case to Respondent No.1 on 07.11.2020. However, despite making several representations, Respondent No.1 rejected her request through the impugned Memo No. 634-P/Ser.II/A2/2019-2, dated 06.05.2022, without assigning any reasons and the same had been intimated to the petitioner by the respondent No.3 herein vide its Memorandum File No.A1- COMP.APPT/172/2022, dated 09.05.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD A) The relevant portion of the impugned proceedings vide Memo No.634-P/Ser.I I/A2/2019-2, dated 06.05.2022 issued by the respondent No.1-Principal Secretary to Government to the respondent No.2-The Director General of Police, Telangana State, is extracted hereunder “The attention of the Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad, is Invited to the references cited. PERUSED THE RECORD A) The relevant portion of the impugned proceedings vide Memo No.634-P/Ser.I I/A2/2019-2, dated 06.05.2022 issued by the respondent No.1-Principal Secretary to Government to the respondent No.2-The Director General of Police, Telangana State, is extracted hereunder “The attention of the Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad, is Invited to the references cited. He is informed that the request of Smt. N.B. Sunitha, divorced daughter of late Ramaswamy, ARPC 30, Warangal for providing appointment to her under compassionate grounds is not feasible for consideration as per the existing rules. 2. The Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad, is requested to intimate the same to the individual under due acknowledgement.” B) The relevant portion of the memorandum of the respondent No.3-The Commissioner of Police, Warangal, vide File No.A1-COMP.APPT/172/2022 dated 09.05.2023 issued to the petitioner herein is extracted hereunder “In pursuance of the Govt orders issued vide reference 5 th cited, the request of Smt N.B.Sunitha, divorced daughter of ate Ramaswamy, ARPC 30, Warangal for providing appointment to her under compassionate grounds is not feasible for consideration as per the existing rules.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner's representation dated 13.02.2019 seeking compassionate appointment was rejected by Respondent No.1 vide proceedings dated 06.05.2022, and the same was communicated to the petitioner through proceedings dated 09.05.2023 of the respondent No.3 without assigning any reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s candidature for appointment on compassionate grounds. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is entitled to know the reasons as a matter of right as to why petitioner’s application dated 13.02.2019, seeking compassionate appointment, was rejected. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the fact, as borne on record, that the impugned orders dated 06.05.2022 issued by Respondent No.1 and 09.05.2022 issued by Respondent No.3 do not disclose any reasons. Although the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents attempts to justify the rejection by stating reasons, this Court opines that the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment ought to have been considered in accordance to law by Respondent Nos.1 and 3 on its own merits. The application cannot be summarily rejected without conducting an inquiry into the specific plea raised by the petitioner that she is a divorced and dependent daughter of her aged mother, who is a pensioner. 6. The application cannot be summarily rejected without conducting an inquiry into the specific plea raised by the petitioner that she is a divorced and dependent daughter of her aged mother, who is a pensioner. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned orders indicates that they are bereft of reasons. Except for stating that providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner is not feasible for consideration as per the existing rules, no further explanation is provided in the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 dated 06.05.2022, which was subsequently communicated to the petitioner through the memo dated 09.05.2023 issued by Respondent No.3. 7. This Court opines that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition since the impugned orders had been passed mechanically, without application of mind and without assigning any reasons, in a routine manner. 8. The object of compassionate appointment is a social security measure to support the family of the deceased government servant, who dies in harness. The aim and object of the policy for compassionate appointment is to provide financial support to the family of the deceased employee, who left the dependents in distress and penury. The core aim of the object of providing compassionate appointment is to relieve the family from financial sufferings being faced for the sudden demise of the Bread Winner of the family. The sufferings being faced by the dependents of the deceased employee for sudden demise of the Bread Winner could be solved for some extent by providing compassionate appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased employee to look after the family. The said relief should not be denied on the ground that the same is not feasible without assigning any reasons defeating the very object of the compassionate appointment. 9. Few Judgments of the Apex Court on the point of recording of reasons. a. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2001) 5 SCC 664 in Tandon Brothers Vs. The said relief should not be denied on the ground that the same is not feasible without assigning any reasons defeating the very object of the compassionate appointment. 9. Few Judgments of the Apex Court on the point of recording of reasons. a. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2001) 5 SCC 664 in Tandon Brothers Vs. State of West Bengal & Others at para 34 observed as under : “Governmental action must be based on utmost good faith, belief and ought to be supported with reason on the basis of the State of Law – if the action is otherwise or runs counter to the same the action cannot be ascribed to be malafide and it would be a plain exercise of judicial power to countenance such action and set the same aside for the purpose of equity, good conscience and justice. Justice of the situation demands action clothed with bonafide reason and necessities of the situation in accordance with the law.” b. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 in Kranti Associates Private Limited & Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others at para 47 observed as under : Para 47 : Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons, for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”. c. The Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in (1951) SCC 1088 observed as under : J “We are clear that the public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the Officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in (1951) SCC 1088 observed as under : J “We are clear that the public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the Officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the acting’s and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. d. Former Chief Justice of India, Late Justice Y.V. Chandrachud in judgment reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 in Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India held that law cannot permit any exercise of power by an executive to keep the reasons undisclosed if the only motive for doing so is to keep the reasons away from judicial scrutiny. e. The Apex Court in case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-I Circle, AIR 2009 Supplement SC 561 observed as under : “Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless”. f. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley Limited) Vs. Crabtree reported in (1974) I CR 120 (NIRC) it was observed “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “I nscrutable face of the sphinx” it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their Appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision.” g. The Apex Court in judgment reported in (2010) 3 SCC 732 in Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Others at para 41 observed as under : “Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion, it introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum”. 10. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Others at para 41 observed as under : “Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion, it introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum”. 10. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The contents of the Memo No.634- P/Ser.II/A2/2019-2, dated 06.05.2022 issued by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.2 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the compassionate appointment without assigning any reasons(referred to and extracted above) and, d) The memorandum of the respondent No.2 vide File No.A1-COMP.APPT/172/2022 dated 09.05.2023 issued to the petitioner herein (referred to and extracted above), e) The view and the observations of Apex Court in the judgments referred to and extracted above, The Writ Petition is allow ed and the impugned order/memo issued by the respondent No.1 vide Memo No.634-P/Ser.I/A2/2019-2, dated 06.05.2022 issued by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.2 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds without assigning any reasons and intimating the same to the petitioner through respondent No.3 vide its File No. A1-COMP.APPT/172/2022 dated 09.05.2023 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein to re-consider the application of the petitioner dated 13.02.2019 for providing appointment under compassionate grounds in accordance to law by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and decide the subject issue within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.