S.C. Das, J.

1. By this writ petition the petitioner prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground, for the death of her husband, who had died in-harness. Heard learned counsel, Mr. L. Tenzin, for the petitioner and Additional Sr. G.A., Mr. N. Lawang for the respondents.

2. It is inter alia stated by the petitioner that her husband Tassar Lomdik, while in service, as a constable of police under the Police Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, died on 02.05.2009 leaving behind the petitioner and 6(six) minor children, the youngest one was aged about 3 years. The deceased constable was the sole bread earner of the petitioner and her children and on his death, the petitioner and her children facing immense hardship for survival and therefore, the petitioner immediately made an application to the respondents, authority of her husband for providing her a suitable job to come out of imminent financial hardship, on compassionate ground. The petitioner produced all documents in respect of her qualification (Class VIII passed) and other relevant testimonials and on consideration of those documents and after taking physical measurement etc., the name of the petitioner was enrolled on Sl. No. 225 (Roll No. 00463) in the list of candidates eligible for appointment under Group-D post. Thereafter, by a call letter dated 19.01.2011 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), the petitioner was asked to appear before the Selection Board on 23.02.2010 at 9-30 hours for physical efficiency test, written test, trade test and viva-voce etc. Accordingly, she appeared before the Board and the Board considering her application, based on her educational qualification, physical measurement etc. and her testimonials, enlisted her for a Group D post under the department. The Chairman of the Board declared the total vacancy available under the Group-D posts and asked the petitioner and other candidates to give their preferences for any Group-D posts of Washer man, Cook, Water Carrier, Barber and Sweeper etc. There was only one post for Washer man and the petitioner gave her preference for that post. On 25.02.2011 the Selection Board conducted a trade test and the petitioner appeared in the trade test of Washer man and was waiting for further communication from the respondents, but received no response. Thereafter, the petitioner being helpless, through her uncle, collected all material documents regarding the selection process under the die-in-harness scheme and found that the Selection Board in the trade test awarded her only 5 marks observing that she could not perform well in respect of the test of ironing clothes and therefore, she was excluded from further consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. It is contended by the petitioner that no financial assessment of the petitioner was made, which was a most important criteria for consideration of appointment in Group-D posts, on compassionate ground, and other relevant factors including that of the family condition, need of a job etc., were also not considered. The respondents considered appointment of 91 candidates but excluded the petitioner only on merit in respect of the trade test without considering other aspects. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the decision of the respondents and prayed for issuing necessary direction for consideration of her candidature.

3. Respondents contended that the application of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground, on the death of her husband, who was a constable of police, was duly taken to consideration but in trade test she could only secure 5 marks and therefore, she was excluded from consideration. The trade test was held on 25.02.2001 and thereafter viva-voce test was taken for all other eligible candidates but since the petitioner could not succeed in the trade test, she was not called for viva-voce test. The selection was ma