The main legal point established is that under the Die-in-harness Scheme, unmarried legitimate children living with the widow of the deceased employee are considered part of the family and eligible for appointment.

Heard Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D.C. Nath, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court for directing the respondents to appoint her to a post commensurate to her qualification under the Die-in-harness Scheme for death of her father namely Tapan Chakraborty who was serving as the Graduate Teacher under the Directorate of School Education, Government of Tripura. When her father was posted at Chandrapur Girls H/S School, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura he died on 10.11.2011. The petitioner with no-objection from her widow mother applied for employment under the Die-in-harness Scheme on 16.02.2012, within the stipulated time as prescribed by the Die-in-harness Scheme. According to the petitioner, immediately after her submission of the said prayer, the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura made a communication under No.F.1(1-2)-SE/E/(NG)/2012/(10)/529 dated 29.05.2012 seeking a report from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura.

3. It appeared from the records that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura carried out an inquiry and furnished his report on 03.08.2012 where he had recommended the petitioner for her appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. The said communication dated 29.05.2012 and the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 03.08.2012 are available with the writ petition as Annexure-B and C. But by the communication dated 22.02.2013 [Annexure-D to the writ petition] the petitioner was informed that the Finance Department has expressed their inability to give accord for appointment of the petitioner, as the petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased employee. The petitioner made a representation for further consideration of her prayer on 08.03.2013. With the said representation, the petitioner had enclosed copies of the Ordinary Resident Register (ORR) Certificate and the family Ration Card. The said representation was rejected by the respondent No.2 by the communication dated 30.05.2015 [Annexure-F to the writ petition].

4. When the petitioner had come across the memorandum dated 07.05.2016 whereby he was asked to report to the planning section of the office of the respondent No.2, he reported the planning section. But he could not find out any valid reason for summoning her to that section. The petitioner had come across the memorandum dated 24.09.2011 issued by the GA (P&T) Department, Government of Tripura, by dint of which the definition of the “family” in the Die-in-harness Scheme was revised. By the said memorandum dated 24.09.2011 the “family” has been defined as follows :

“2. Now, the definition of the term “family” for the purpose of providing employment/financial assistance both in die-in-harness and extremist/ethnic violence schemes has been reviewed by the Government and it is proposed to amend the definition of “family” as in the following manner :-

(i) his wife or her husband, as the case may be;

(ii) legitimate children excluding a married son or married daughter or daughter-in-law, if he/she lives separately from other members of the family;

(iii) step Children;

(iv) adopted Children.

(v) dependent daughter-in-law;

(vi) dependent parents;

(vii) dependent unmarried brother and unmarried sister and

(viii) dependent widow daughters.”

5. On the basis of the said memorandum dated 24.09.2011, the petitioner renewed her prayer for appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme by filing another representation dated 28.07.2017 [Annexure-H to the writ petition]. But the said representation was also rejected without disclosing any reason by the memorandum dated 18.08.2017 [Annexure-I to the writ petition]. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition.

6. Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that reasons as assigned by the Finance Department are grossly in c