SUNITHAKUMARI Vs. K S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The request of petitioner for employment assistance under the dying in harness scheme was rejected by the Government as per Ext. P4 dated 5-8-1991. That order is under challenge in this original petition.

(2.) Petitioner's father Sri. Vikrama Panicker while serving as Assistant Store Keeper in the Kerala State Electricity Board died in harness on 14-8-1984 leaving behind petitioner, her brother and their mother as the heirs. Petitioner was a minor at the time of his death. Two years thereafter petitioner's brother died. After attaining majority petitioner, submitted an application for employment assistance with necessary certificates. Some more particulars were called for and they were also furnished: Petitioner was called upon to submit a certificate to the effect that she was not married. She was betrothed to one Sasikumar on 1-2-1990 and the customer)' exchange of wedding ring also took place. The marriage was solemnised on 21-1-1991. A certificate was thereafter obtained from the Tahsildar to that effect Petitioner was informed by Ext. P4 that her request cannot be considered since employment assistance can be given only to an unmarried daughter. Hence the original petition. Petitioner seeks a declaration that the regulation in so far as it makes a married daughter ineligible for appointment on compassionate grounds as ultra vires and unconstitutional. A writ in the nature of mandamus is claimed directing respondents 1 and 2 not to enforce that regulation and to appoint petitioner in the service of the first respondent on compassionate grounds.

(3.) On behalf of first respondent a counter affidavit was filed stating that the application seeking appointment was presented with false particulars, that in the application she had declared herself to be unmarried but she later admitted that she was legally married on 1-2-1990. Having been married by the date of the application the request of petitioner could not have been considered. Petitioner was still informed that her mother is eligible for appointment and the Board is willing to consider her claim provided a proper application is presented by her. It is further contended that the classification made by the Board is having due nexus with the object of the scheme. Employment given to a married daughter will not be an assistance to the dependants of a deceased employee. The term 'dependant' has got only a limited application, applicable for the purpose of employment assistance. Petitioner is therefore not eligible for appointment under the scheme.