JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty 1 The petitioner, in this writ application, seeks for a direction to the opposite parties for appointment of her son under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme after the death of her husband. 2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that her husband-N. Narayan Swami expired on 14.5.1993 while working as Helper under opposite Party No. 3. After the death of her husband, the petitioner submitted an application to opposite Party No. 3 for employment of her second son- D. Krishnamurty in any suitable post under the Rehabilitation Assistance-Scheme. The application submitted by the petitioner was referred to the District Magistrate for enquiry and to submit a report. The District Magistrate upon enquiry submitted the report stating that income of the family was Rs. 3,000/- per year. But it appears, the application was rejected on the reasoning that one of the sons of the deceased employee is in employment under the Board. This decision of the Board has been assailed in this writ application on the plea that the eldest son, who is said to be in employment of the Board, has already been separated from the family during the life time of the deceased. 3. The opposite parties have filed a counter stating that the first son of the petitioner was working as a Helper under the Management of the Board. Therefore, in terms of Para - 2 (iii) of the O.S.E.B. Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Regulation, 1992 the petitioner is ineligible for being appointed under the Scheme. 4. Though very many contentions have been raised, we need not notice them as we are of the view that the writ application can be disposed of on the aforesaid pleadings of the parties. 5. There is no dispute that the eldest son of the petitioner is in employment under the Board and is working as a Helper. Since a member of the family is already in employment, neither the petitioner nor her second son is eligible for appointment under the Scheme inasmuch as the Regulation prohibits such employment. Though a contention has been made that the eldest son was separated since 1987, yet the same is disputed by the opposite parties. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order of rejection communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure - 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Though a contention has been made that the eldest son was separated since 1987, yet the same is disputed by the opposite parties. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order of rejection communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure - 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. There shall be no order as to costs. P.K. Mohanty, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed