Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.

1. Challenging the rejection of representation for compassionate appointment vide order dated 01.3.2011 passed by the office of the Director General of Police confirming the order of the Superintendent of Police, Turicorin District, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition and has also sought for direction to the respondents to provide him employment on compassionate grounds.

2. One P. Malaiappan was functioning as a Sub-Inspector of Police and while in service, he expired on 08.4.2008 due to an accident. He was survived by the petitioner and his sisters born through the second wife and two wives. It is the case of the petitioner that his father originally married one Saroja, who was none other than his mother's elder sister and since she was issueless, his father married his mother as his second wife and they all lived in one house. The further case of the petitioner is that at the time of his father's death, he was studying degree of law and hence, his mother's sister, viz. first wife of the deceased, sent a representation dated 26.11.2008 to the second respondent Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District, requesting for his appointment on compassionate ground and the same was rejected by proceedings dated 08.11.2010 stating that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to the legal heirs of the deceased through the second wife. Hence, the petitioner sent representation to the first respondent Director General of Police and the same was also rejected by proceedings dated 01.03.2011 confirming the order of the second respondent. The said orders are impugned in the instant Writ Petition.

3. The respondents have contested the Writ Petition stating that the children born through the second wife are not entitled for compassionate appointment. Relying on Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 34 Labour and Employment (Q-1) Department dated 16.4.2002, it is stated that the children born out of void marriages are entitled for the benefit in respect of the property of the deceased Government servant and that compassionate appointment cannot be equated to the status of the property of the deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the law relating to compassionate appointment especially with reference to dependents, should be read in line with the provisions available in the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 16 of the said Hindu Marriage Act legitimizes the children born to a couple whose marriage may not be held legally valid. The children are entitled to inherit the property of the parents. The counsel submitted that the petitioner's status as a legitimate son of the deceased has also been recognised by Court by issuance of Succession Certificate to the effect that he was born to the deceased Malaiappan through his second wife. As such, according to the learned counsel, in matters of compassionate appointments also, when the first wife did not apply for herself for such appointment, the applicant being a legitimate son of the deceased should be considered for such appointment.

5. Learned Government Advocate representing the respondents contended that the deceased being a Hindu, was subject to the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, which prohibits bigamy and thus, he was prohibited from marrying a second time during the life time of his first wife. Even where second marriage is permissible under the Personal Laws, in so far as Government servants is concerned, permission to contract the second marriage has to be obtained. Thus, his second marriage being void, the petitioner is not entitled to any compassionate appointment.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate representing the respondents and perused the records.

7. It is a policy of the Government that monogamy should be the Rule. As per the Service Rules, no Government servant shall enter into second marriage when the first spouse is living. Even in case of persons belonging