ORDER :

1. The writ petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.293/A1/2010, dated 27.07.2016 passed by the third respondent and direct the respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in the respondent department.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's father viz., M. Tamilarasu, died on 02.02.1998, while he was working as a PG Assistant in the Government Higher Secondary School, Kumaralingam, leaving behind him, his wife and two daughters and one son. On 27.02.1998, the petitioner's mother made an application seeking compassionate ground appointment to her son, well within the period of limitation, which was rejected by the District Educational Officer, Pollachi by order dated 11.12.2000 stating that the first legal heir should have made such application. Subsequently, the petitioner's mother made another application on 29.01.2001 stating that she was suffering from illness and her first daughter already got married and hence, she requested to provide appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner, who is the second daughter of the deceased government servant. Finding no response on the same, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 21.11.2003 to the Chief Minister's Special Cell, Chennai, to which, she received a reply on 13.03.2004 from the District Educational Officer, Pollachi that due to ban order, her application was pending for consideration. Thereafter, by order dated 27.07.2016, the third respondent rejected the petitioner's application on the wrong premises that during the process of the application submitted by her brother, alternative application was made by the petitioner seeking compassionate ground appointment, which could not be considered. Whereas, the fact remains that the first application made the petitioner's brother was already rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

3. Upon notice, the respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated that the third respondent disposed of the application of the petitioner's mother seeking appointment on compassionate ground to her youngest son negatively, because as per the rules in force, which permits the spouse alone for compassionate appointment, when she is alive. It is further stated therein that the proceedings of the Government in Lr.No.3845/Pani 9(11) 2007 dated 27.12.2007 and the orders and rules in force, do not permit alternative legal heirs for consideration to be appointed on compassionate ground and hence, the respondents have no other option to reject the application of the petitioner, who is the second daughter of the deceased government servant, stating that she is not eligible for such appointment because she is an alternative legal heir, when her mother is alive.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the first application seeking appointment on compassionate appointment to the petitioner's brother was rejected, the petitioner being an alternative legal heir, is eligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground, whereas the second application filed by her, was also rejected stating that the alternative application could not be considered, which is arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions of the Scheme. Stating so, the learned counsel prayed to allow this writ petition, by setting aside the order impugned herein.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that after analysing the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the prevailing rules, the third respondent has rightly passed the impugned order, thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground and hence, the same does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.

7. It is evident from the materials that the petitioner's father di