1. Petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment for her daughter on ground of death in harness of her son Javid Iqbal Qadri in September, 1997 while posted as Medical Assistant at D.H. Pora, Anantnag. She is also questioning the appointment of Mst. Mehbooba, the widow of deceased Javid Iqbal Qadri, (her daughter in law), under Compassionate Appointment Rules (SRO 43 of 1994). Respondents 1 to 4 and respondent 5 have filed reply separately. 2. Parties are heard at this pre-admission stage. It is not in dispute that Javid Iqbal Qadri, a Medical Assistant of Health Department of the State, died in harness in September. 1997. It is not also in dispute that said Javid Ahmad is survived by his widow Mehbooba, respondent No. 5: mother, Mst. Sarwa (petitioner), Sister, Suraya Jabeen and two other minor girls. 3. Rule 4 of the J&K Compassionate Appointment Rules 1994 (here after Rules), provides for appointment of a ˜family member™ of a Government employee who dies in harness due to a cause other than militancy related action (as in this case). ˜Family member™ within the meaning of Rule 2(d) includes spouse� son, daughter, adopted son, adopted daughter, sister or brother, wholly dependent on the deceased. Respondent No. 5 widow of the deceased on her application was granted required certificate. In terms of this certificate dated 05-08-1998, not only she, her two daughters, deceased™s mother and sister are also shown as members of the family. 4. The Competent authority, Director Health Services Kashmir-Respondent No.2, after consideration of the matter appointed Mehbooba Akhter, respondent No. 5 deceased™s widow, on compassionate grounds in Health Department against the post of ANM (FMPH). 5. Petitioner™s grouse against the issuance of certificate to and appointment of, her widow-daughter-in-law, is that she and her daughter have been totally ignored, while she (respondent 5) got the certificate and the employment. The certificate and employment ought to have been given and offered to her unmarried daughter. Respondent 5 was already appointed an adhoc basis as ANM at the time, when she appointed substantively on compassionate grounds and could not have got the job when it was due to Suraya Jabeen, her daughter. The certificate and employment ought to have been given and offered to her unmarried daughter. Respondent 5 was already appointed an adhoc basis as ANM at the time, when she appointed substantively on compassionate grounds and could not have got the job when it was due to Suraya Jabeen, her daughter. She has left the house and is not caring for the family and has obtained the order of appointment by fraud and misrepresentation she has a right to claim job for her daughter in the event of death of her son in harness. She has sought quashment of the order of appointment of the widow daughter-in-law, respondent No.5. 6. In reply, in terms of objections, on affidavit of official respondents and by respondent No. 5, the appointment of Mehbooba widow of Javid Iqbal Qadri (who died in harness as Medical Asstt. of Health Department), is averred to have been made on compassionate grounds in terms of the above rules (SRO 43 of 94), after certificate was issued by the Revenue authorities for the purpose. The order of appointment of respondent No. 5 is stated to be in order and covered fully by the Compassionate Appointment Rules. Mother is excluded as person to form ˜family member™, within the meaning of Clause 2 (d) of the Rules, so as to bestow right of appointment on her. The writ petition is not filed by the sister said Suraya Jabeen, but by the mother Mst. Surwa. In fact Suraya Jabeen is not seeking the appointment, her mother is seeking appointment for her. Besides, it is specifically averred that the petitioner is receiving family pension after the death of her husband, who happened to be a Government servant. She is putting up with her eldest son who too is a Government employee. Suraya Jabeen, is averred to be married and residing outside her parental house with her husband. Respondent No. 5 is living with and supporting her two minor daughters. These counter averments in reply have not been refuted. 7. It is seen that Sarwa Begum (petitioner) cannot get appointment for herself under the J&K Compassionate Appointment Rules I994 (SRO 48 of 94). Respondent No. 5 is living with and supporting her two minor daughters. These counter averments in reply have not been refuted. 7. It is seen that Sarwa Begum (petitioner) cannot get appointment for herself under the J&K Compassionate Appointment Rules I994 (SRO 48 of 94). Her contention that her daughter Suraya Jabeen should have been given compassionate appointment instead of her daughter-in-law (widow of Javid Iqbal Qadri), in harness death case of her son is not and cannot be a ground, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to dislodge Mehbooba-respondent No 5 from compassionate appointment which she has got on the death of her husband. The deceaseds two daughters are averred residing with Mehbooba. Suraya Jabeen is averred married outside her family at Meer Bazar Furrah, where she is residing in matrimonial house with her husband Parvaiz Ahmad. 8. Respondent No.5, who was a trained ANM, was given compassionate appointment after she fulfilled the eligibility and qualification for the post. The petitioner is in receipt of the family pension of her deceased husband, who happened to be Government employee and is presently residing with her elder son who too is averred to be a Government employee. These factual averments in reply on affidavit have not been disputed or contested. Merely because, respondent 5, widow happen to have been working on adhoc appointment when she was given compassionate appointment, is no ground to refuse her the substantive appointment as a ˜family members™ in terms of the Compassionate Appointment Rules. Fraud or misrepresentation as alleged is not all shown to have been practiced to get the order in question. The required factual pleas with specific particulars and a allegations thereto are not pleaded or supported by any material/documents on record. 9. In SWP 1009/97 titled Farooq Ahmad Wani Vs. State of J&K and others, decided on 24-06-1998, this court in the context of death in harness observed:- The appointment on compassionate grounds is not in the nature of an appointment as a matter of statutory right of appointee but is concession granted by the State Government to a dependent of its employee who dies in harness with a view to tried over the extreme hardship of indigent family in a fit case.� 10. The whole object and purpose of giving compassionate appointment to a family member of the Government Employee who inter alia dies in harness other than due to militancy related action, is in the nature of concession given by the Government with a view to enable the family to overcome extreme hardship caused to it by the death of its bread earner, who happen to be a Govt. employee. Obviously, it is for the Government to determine which is a fit case and to whom among the family members of the employee who dies in harness, an employment is merited to be offered Here employment has been given to the widow of the deceased Government employee who has left behind two girl children. The sister and the mother in comparison to the widow and children cannot claim the compassionate appointment in favour of sister, even if the other circumstances and facts on record weighing scales in favour of widow, are for a moment left apart. After all between competing claims of family members for concession of appointment on compassionate grounds under the J&K Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994 (SRO 48 of 94), the first preference has to be given to the deceased employees widow and his children not to his mother and sister. The petitioner has not been discriminate against. She has not probablised any unjustifiable or under-hand appointment of respondent No.5, the widow. No right of petitioner has been violated. After all no right is vested in the petitioner to be appointed on compassionate ground. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed at the thresh hold in limine.