JUDGMENT :

1. Ms. Subhash Rathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This special appeal has been filed by the State being aggrieved of order dated 09.08.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.7430 of 2021, whereby learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition in regard to the claim of a married daughter i.e. petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment upon death of her father.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that deceased was an employee of Inter College and was working as Adhoc Principal. While in service he died on 25.05.2019. It is submitted that case of an employee of a Inter College is governed by the Provisions contained in 'Mritak Aashrit Vinayam 101, 103 and 107 as amended on 02.02.1995', which amended the regulation vide Notification No.300/15-7-2(1)/90, Shiksha Anubhag-7 dated 02.02.1995 in terms of the provisions contained in Section 21(1) of Uttar Pradesh Sadharan Khand Adhiniyam, 1904 read with Section 9(2) of Intermediate Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1921 in terms of the Government Notification issued by the Governor bearing No. 4001/15-7-2-(1)/90, dated 30.07.1992 as amended vide Government Notification No.A-1-5375/15/1692-58 dated 24.11.1959, wherein, as per the explanation below Regulation 103, only a widow or widower, son, unmarried or widow daughter is entitled to grant of compassionate appointment. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly invoked the provisions of Rule 2(C)(III) of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred as 'Rules of 1974').

4. Learned Standing Counsel also submits that there is no vacant post available for general category candidate and accordingly order dated 21.05.2021 as passed by District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur, cannot be faulted with when he has categorically mentioned that besides non-availability of post, petitioner being not a dependent in terms of the provisions of the regulations, therefore, there was no justification in allowing the writ petition. It is further submitted that widow of the deceased is entitled to family pension. Thus, there is no question of grant of compassionate appointment.

5. Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in case of Vimla Srivastava and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2016 (1) ADJ 21, wherein it is held that when State has adopted Social Welfare Policy, which was grounded on dependency, then keeping away daughters from ambit of expression "Family" under Rule 2(C) of the Rules of 1947, on ground of marriage would constitute impermissible discrimination and same is in violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, therefore, words 'unmarried' in Rule 2(C)(III) of Rules was struck down and petitions were allowed.

6. In para 3 of the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Vimla Srivastava (supra), it is held that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial support to such a family by stipulating that upon the death of its wage earner while in harness as a Government Servant, another member of the family would be granted appointment. It held that compassionate appointment is not a reservation of a post in public employment, but is in the nature of an enabling provision under which a member of the family of a deceased Government Servant, who has died while in harness, can seek appointment based on financial dependency and need.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is no more in dispute that the law in regard to grant of compassionate appointment is dependent on three criteria, namely, eligibility prescribed under the relevant Rules, death of a bread earner in harness and appointment based on financial dependency and need. Rules of 1974 provides that it shall regulate the recruitment of the dependents of go