Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Petitioner was born on 09.10.1995. She was married on 29.06.2012 to Raj Kumar Sah, who was employed in the Government of Chhattisgarh as a Police Constable. He died on 15.02.2014. The service records of that deceased employee showed the Petitioner as his wife. She is being paid pension referable to the late Raj Kumar Sah and her name figures in the pension papers. Following her husband's demise in harness, Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. That stands rejected primarily on the ground that she is disqualified from being appointed to government service in terms of Rule 6(5) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961; for short 'General Rules'. The said Sub-rule is therefore challenged by the Petitioner as ultra vires the Constitution. Her application to be appointed as a Constable is rejected also on the ground that the materials produced by her, on cross-verification, do not establish that she possesses the minimum qualification required for that post. Hence, this writ petition is filed challenging such rejection of Petitioner's application for compassionate appointment; and also, Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the General Rules.

2. In response to the writ petition, the State filed its pleadings standing by the impugned rule and pleading that the Petitioner has not been able to establish that she is the widow of the late Raj Kumar Sah and further that the Petitioner is not qualified to be appointed to the post of Police Constable for which she has applied. The Petitioner has filed her rejoinder. Alongwith her pleadings, she has placed documents as annexures.

3. The questions that arise for decision in this writ petition, at the outset, are as to the validity of Rule 6(5) of the General Rules and as to what, if any, is the relief that the Petitioner is entitled to on the face of that Sub-rule, if that provision were to stand.

4. Rule 6(5) of the General Rules reads as follows:

"6. Disqualification. - (1) xxx xxx xxx

(5) No candidate shall be eligible for appointment to a service or post who is married before the minimum age fixed for marriage."

The provision in Rule 6(5) of the General Rules is that a person who married before the minimum age fixed for marriage shall not be eligible for appointment to a service or post to which the General Rules apply.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Sub-rule (5) in Rule 6 of the General Rules was introduced through amendment published on 10.03.2000 while the General Rules were part of those which governed the government servants of the State of Madhya Pradesh and hence, on and after the formation of State of Chhattisgarh, w.e.f 01.11.2000, in terms of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000; for short 'Reorganization Act', the said Sub-rule cannot be treated to continue to operate, particularly in view of the deletion of that Sub-rule by the State of Madhya Pradesh as evidenced by what has been recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Ratnarashi Pandey v. M.P Public Service Commission which was before that Court as SLP(Civil) No. 11383 of 2012. It is further argued that the said Sub-rule is ultra vires the Articles 14, 15(3), 16, 19, 39(a), 46 and 309 of the Constitution of India and should not be enforced to punish a female who, as a girl child, was actually the victim of a child marriage, which is prohibited and punishable under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act; for short 'PCM Act'. It is pointed out that the Petitioner, while a girl child, was given in marriage to Raj Kumar Sah, without her consent. It is accordingly argued that as the Petitioner's marriage was before she attained the majority and the minimum age fixed for marriage, she is eligible to be extended due protection and therefore deprivement of compassionate appointment applying Sub-rule (5) of the Rule 6 of the General Rules amounts to deprivation of the right to life. It is argued that the provisi