With the consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission.

2. The father of the petitioner was working as Head Cook and Watchman in Government Malaival Uraividaival School at Nochikuttai Village, Dharamapuri District. He died on 18.01.2003 while he was in service, leaving the petitioner and her mother as legal heirs. He has no son and the petitioner is the only daughter.

3. The petitioner immediately submitted an application for compassionate appointment in the month of April 2003 to respondents 3 to 5. The 4th respondent passed the impugned order dated 28.08.2003, wherein and by which, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the sole ground that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to married daughters.

4. According to the petitioner, the Government imposed ban on recruitment including compassionate appointment. The ban was lifted only on 21.02.2006. The petitioner made repeated representations to the third respondent on 06.03.2006, 09.08.2007, 05.07.2010, 28.03.2011 and 10.12.2012. However, no follow up action was taken on those applications. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the aforesaid order dated 28.08.2003 declining to grant compassionate appointment on the ground of marriage.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of this Court reported in 2008 (5) CTC 686 [G.Girija v. The Assistant Director (Panchayats), Kancheepuram District and (2013) 8 MLJ 684 [Krishnaveni v. Superintending Engineer, Kadamparai Electricity Generation Block, Coimbatore District] and would submit that the State cannot discriminate in the matter of providing compassionate appointment to woman.

6. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that earlier, there was a total restriction in providing compassionate appointment to a married daughter, but now the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010 providing compassionate appointment to the married daughter, provided that she was unmarried at the time of submitting application for compassionate appointment. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the petitioner was married even before the death of her father. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment as per the scheme.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

8. The question that arises for consideration is whether the State can discriminate in the matter of providing compassionate appointment to women (daughters) on the ground of marriage, while no such restriction is imposed for men (sons).

9. The State cannot discriminate against women in providing compassionate appointment, citing marriage as a reason and such action of the State is against the very Scheme of the Constitution. The preamble of the Constitution ensures "equality of status and opportunity" to all its citizens. Therefore, opportunity in public employment cannot be deprived to women on the ground of marriage, while the same is not a restriction in the case of men.

10. Further, the Preamble declares that the dignity of the individual would be assured, while promoting fraternity among citizens. The dignity of women would not be assured, if they are discriminated by the State in providing employment on compassionate ground. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that if the Scheme of the State providing employment on compassionate ground treats the women differently on the ground of marriage to their detriment, the Scheme would certainly be violative of various provisions of the Constitution of India.

11. G.O.Ms.No.165 Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010 refers to the earlier Government Orders viz., namely G.O.Ms.No.560 Labour and Employment Department, dated 03.08.1977 and G.O.Ms.No.155 L & E Department, dated 16.07.1993 relating to the Scheme of Compassionate appointment.

12. In G.O.Ms.No.560 da