K.M. Joseph, J.

1. Appellant is the writ petitioner. Appellant was born in the year 1986. His mother died in the year 1989. Thereafter, his father remarried in 1994. The stepmother of the appellant, namely, the lady whom his father married upon the death of the appellant’s mother, was already employed in the State of U.P. The father of the appellant, who was employed with the State Government, passed away in the year 2009; at that time, the appellant was nearly 23 years of age. Appellant sought the benefit of appointment under Dying in Harness Scheme. The case of the appellant is governed by Rule 5. The same reads as follows:

“5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased:-

(1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased Government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules if such person:-

(i) Fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post.

(ii) Is otherwise qualified for Government service, and

(iii) Makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the death of the Government servant.

Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time-limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.

(2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death.”

2. The request of the appellant having not elicited the desired response, he filed the present writ petition, from which, this appeal arises. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the appeal.

3. We heard Mr. P.S. Bohara, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that actually the stepmother has two children from her first marriage. He would further submit that the stepmother and the appellant are living separately and his stepmother has never taken care of the appellant and upon the death of the father of the appellant, he was left destitute, therefore, the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that in terms of the Rule, which we have alluded to hereinbefore insofar as the stepmother of the appellant is already employed with the State of U.P., appellant is not entitled, cannot be supported. He would submit that under The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 expressly excludes a stepmother from the expression mother. Section 6 of the said Act reads as follows:

“6. Natural guardians of a Hindu minor.- The natural guardian of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor’s person as well as in respect of the minor’s property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are:-

(a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl-the father, and after him, the mother; provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother;

(b) in the case of an illegitimate boy or an illegitimate unmarried girl-the mother, and after her, the father;

(c) in the case of a married girl-the husband;

Provided that no person shall be entitled to act as the natural guardian of a minor under the provisions of this section:-

(a) if he