Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Petitioner before this Court made an application for compassionate appointment on the allegation that her mother-in-law expired during harness and that her husband had pre-deceased the mother-in-law meaning thereby that the petitioner was widowed doughtier-in-law of the deceased employee. This application of the petitioner was considered and appointment was offered to her. However, on complaints being made, the appointment has been cancelled under the impugned order dated 28.4.2008. Hence this petition.

2. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the impugned order has been passed without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and further that the same proceeds on presumption that there is a dispute in respect of the right of the petitioner for such compassionate appointment. He submits that the order cannot be legally sustained.

3. On behalf of the respondents, it is pointed out that a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Hardoi v. Madhu Mishra and others, 2009 (27) LCD 995, has specifically held that widowed daughter-in-law of the deceased employee is not included in the scheme providing for compassionate appointment and, therefore, petitioner can have no claim for such appointment. Irrespective of the reasons assigned in the impugned order since the petitioner was not within the category of persons entitled for compassionate appointment, this Court may not interfere in this matter inasmuch as any order in favour of the petitioner would only perpetuate an illegal appointment.

4. Person seeking impleadment as set up her independent claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that she is divorced daughter of the deceased employee.

5. Shri H.N. Pandey, counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder-affidavit submits that appointments has been offered to her in terms of the Government Order dated 4.4.2000 and that the authorities have interpreted that the widowed daughter-in-law is within the definition of family of the deceased employee. He contends that the person seeking impleadment has not been divorced. The allegations in that regard are false. She has been married and there is no decree of divorce granted by any Court of law. In any case even a divorced daughter-in-law is not entitled for such compassionate appointment.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have examined the records.

7. The issue with regard to the entitlement of a widowed doughtier-in-law being within the scheme providing for compassionate appointment, has specifically been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Basic Shiksha Adhikari (supra). After overruling the judgments of the Single Judge reported in 2003 (4) AWC 3205 and reported in 2006 (5) ADJ 501 the Division Bench after considering the definition of ‘family’ as contained under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying-in-harness Rules, 1974, which have been applied to the employees of Basic Shiksha Parishad under Government Order dated 4.9.2000 in exercise of powers under Section 13(1) of U.P. Basic Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1972 has proceeded to hold that daughter-in-law is not covered within the definition of family, hence she is not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. Reference para 14 of the said judgment which is quoted here-in-below :

“ ....... 14. “Hard case makes bad law” is a concept well known in Courts of Law. In the cases of Urmila Devi (supra) and Sanyogita Rai (supra), much emphasis has been laid on the word ‘’includes’ in the definition of ‘’family’. It is true that inclusive definition is often used in the interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the word but the said principle does not contemplate inclusion of such persons which has no nexus with the description of the relations mentioned in the Rules. Rule 2(c) of the Rules 1974 does include ‘’widowed daughter’ but does not include daughter-in-law. The Rule-making Authority having