JUDGMENT
Bilal Nazki, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ petition has been filed by the State challenging the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 6223 of 1995. It appears that respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Shroff by an order dated 9-7-91 by the District Treasury Officer, Srikakulam. The appointment was ordered on compassionate grounds in view of the fact that the respondent No. 1’s father had died while in service. After the order of appointment was passed, it appears that, a G.O. was issued by the Government being G.O.Ms. No. 612 on 30th October, 1991. This G.O provided certain exemptions in case of compassionate appointments with regard to the qualifications. Taking clue from the G.O the 1st respondent filed an application seeking conversion of her appointment from the post of Shoroff to the post of Junior Accountant. The District Treasury Officer accepted this application and passed an order on 10th April, 1992. This order reads as under:
“In terms of the provisions contained in G.O.Ms. No. 612, G.A.D (Ser.A) Department Dt. 30-10-91 and in view of the circumstances explained in the reference 2nd and 3rd cited Kum.B. Srivani, Shroff, Dist. Treasury, Srikakulam is hereby converted to the post of Junior Accountant in the Treasury unit of Srikakulam District and posted to Dist. Treasury, Srikakulam in the existing vacancy.
Her conversion to the post of Junior Accountant is subject to acquiring qualification in Typewriting Higher Grade in English within two years from the date of this order.”
2. The learned Government Pleader submits that, rules do not provide for conversion of post of Shroff into the post of Junior Accountant and as such the order dated 10th April, 1992 was without jurisdiction and could not sustain. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submits that that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that this order was in fact an appointment order which was wrongly referred to as conversion order and this should be taken as a fresh appointment which was made in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 612 dated 30th October, 1991. This interpretation has been accepted by the Tribunal but, with respects, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal in this connection. The District Treasury Officer wanted to appoint respondent No.1 as Junior Accountant, since he could not do it even in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 612 which was issued by the Government subsequent to the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Shroff, he devised the method of conversion. Even if the respondent No.1 had been qualified on the date her father died or even on the date when the G.O.Ms. No. 612 had been issued even then she could not have been appointed as Junior Accountant on compassionate grounds because of the bar created under clause (iv) of para-2 of the G.O. Appointment on compassionate ground has to be made at the lowest rung post and in case a candidate is not eligible to be appointed even at that level exemptions can be given, but if a candidate who seeks compassionate appointment is eligible for the lowest rung post there is no question of granting him exemptions and appointing him to a higher post. Clause (iv) of para-2 of the G.O mentions the posts for which the candidates on compassionate grounds are eligible to be appointed. Although this G.O is not applicable to the respondent No. 1 because her appointment had been made as Shroff before this G.O was issued, even if this G.O were applicable to her, even then she could not be appointed as Junior Accountant.
3. For these reasons, we find that the Tribunal’s order cannot be allowed to sustain which is accordingly quashed and the Writ petition is allowed.
4. We are told at the Bar that the respondent No. 1 has been continued in service from the date of her first appointment as Shroff. Therefore, we feel that the service of the respondent No. 1 from 9-7-91 as Shroff should be calculated for all purposes and in case she is entitled to any promotion on the basis of her being a Shroff and having acquired qualifications and passed departmental examinations, she should be considered for such promotion giving the benefit of service as Shroff from 9-7-1991. It is also submitted that no increments were given to the respondent No. 1 after she was reverted to the post of Shroff. The petitioners are directed to release increments as per the rules.