The court held that marital status should not disqualify a married daughter from compassionate appointment, focusing instead on dependency to determine eligibility.

ORDER :

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 08.04.2008 issued by the Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak Circle, whereby, the Petitioner assails the action of the Opposite Parties in not issuing the appointment order for recruitment to Class-III Non-Teaching Posts under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme even though the case of the Petitioner was recommended for appointment by the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the substratum of matter presented before this Court remains that the Petitioner’s father while working as a Primary school teacher died in harness on 23.02.2001 leaving behind the widow and two daughters. The Petitioner (married) is the elder daughter and has +2 Arts qualification. Upon the death of her father, the Petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Class-III Non-teaching staffs under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. On the receipt of the application form, the necessary distress certificate was obtained from the Collector and the case of the Petitioner was recommended for appointment by the Inspector of Schools.

4. The Director, Secondary Education, Odisha vide eligibility list in Annexure-4 series shortlisted the deserving candidates and the name of the petitioner finds place in the said list at Sl. No. 909. Subsequently, the petitioner was called for verification of documents by the Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak Circle vide letter no. 4335 dated 01.06.2007. In the list prepared by Inspector of Schools, the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No. 37. However, the lesser deserving candidates were appointed and the case of the petitioner was overlooked for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.

5. The Petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A No. 263 of 2008 against such inaction and the same was disposed of vide order dated 19.02.2008 with a direction to the Inspector of Schools to dispose of the representation made by the Petitioner. On receipt of the order passed by the Tribunal, the Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak Circle vide order dated 08.04.2008 rejected the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that it violated Instructions vide Para No. (i) in Govt. Letter No. 8510/SME dated 24.04.2007.

6. It is submitted by in Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak Circle has not applied his mind into the matter as no Government Circular prohibits the married daughter of a deceased person, in absence of a son, for recruitment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Therefore, the Inspector of Schools on wrong appreciation of Government Circular passed the order rejecting the claim of the Petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside.

7. Furthermore, it is contended by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner, even after her marriage, is staying at her parent’s house along with her husband who also has no independent source of income and that her mother and younger sister have also suggested that the employment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme be given to the petitioner keeping in view the distress condition of the family.

8. Per Contra, it is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties that in respect of daughters eligible for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, it should be ensured that they are still unmarried as R.A. Scheme provides for extending employment to unmarried daughters. Moreover, it was also contended by Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties that the Petitioner’s younger sister who is unmarried may apply for the requisite benefit u