JUDGMENT 1. - In the instant writ of mandamus, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated March 31, 2000 whereby her services were terminated by respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner came to be appointed as Class IV Employee vide 5 order dated May 21, 1987 by respondent No. 3 after the death of her husband Late Hari Narain Kothari under Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependant of Government Servants dying while in service Rules 1975 (for short 1975 Rules). She continuously worked on the said post till March 31, 2000. Her services were terminated on the ground that as Smt. Chanda Devi. The legally wedded wife of late Hari Narain Kothari was alive, the appointment of the petitioner was illegal. 3. The petitioner admits in the petition that Smt. Chanda Devi is the first wife of late Shri Kothari but she wrote to the Director Industries that she was only interested in the amount of Insurance, gratuity and pension of the deceased and if appointment was given to the petitioner she had no objection. Grievance of the petitioner is that impugned order of termination was passed by the respondent No. 3 without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel Shri Amod Kasliwal entered into caveat on behalf of the respondents and submitted reply. 5. Mr. R.P. Garg learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Roshni Devi v. State of Haryana (1998) 8 SCC 59 and canvassed that even if the appointment is treated invalid, equity may be invoked and appointment of the petitioner be saved looking to the fact that the petitioner had rendered more than 12 years of service. 6. On the other hand Mr. Kasliwal learned counsel contended that since the order of appointment was made in violation of the 1975 Rules the respondents are within their right to recall the appointment. It was also urged that Smt. Chanda Devi in the year 1989 also submitted application seeking appointment. 7. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the record. 8. A Gloss scrutiny of the writ petition goes to show that the petitioner before instituting the writ petition, has not served notice for demand of justice. For issue of mandamus a demand for justice and its refusal is a condition precedent. 7. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the record. 8. A Gloss scrutiny of the writ petition goes to show that the petitioner before instituting the writ petition, has not served notice for demand of justice. For issue of mandamus a demand for justice and its refusal is a condition precedent. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 460 and Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise Central Revenue and others, AIR 1975 SC 538 indicated that writ of mandamus will not be granted unless demand of justice is denied. Calcutta High Court in Subrata Kumar Chatterjee v. Deputy Chief Accounts Officer Eastern Railway and others, AIR 1958 Calcutta 654 held that in the matter of termination of Government servant, demand of justice is essential condition. As the petitioner has not served notice for demand of justice on the respondents, the writ petition is incompetent. 9. From the other angle also no relief can be granted to the petitioner as she was given compassionate appointment in violation to 1975 Rules. Alleged marriage of the petitioner with the late Shri Kothari was void under the provisions of Sections 5 and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 being contracted during the subsistence of the marriage of late Shri Kothari with Smt. Chanda Devi who is still alive. The petitioner was not entitled to appointment under 1975 Rules as she did not come in the definition of family member of late Shri Kothari. A perusal of the impugned order revels that it was passed after thorough enquiry. Case of Roshni Devi v. State of 4-5 Haryana (supra) is distinguishable. Equity can not be invoked in the instant case. Compassionate appointment is a charity at the cost of the others. Such appointment is given to enable the members of the family of the deceased to survive during tragic moments. It is difficult under the circumstances to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the so petitioner. 10. I do not find any merit in the writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. *******