Judgment : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that she is the widow of the deceased S. Venkateswaran, who was appointed as a part time Vocational Instructor in the first respondent school by an order, dated 10. 84, issued by the fourth respondent. It has been further stated that in the year 1987, the Government of Tamil Nadu had called for particulars of part time vocational instructors to regularize their services. Therefore, a letter in Na.Ka.No.228/A1/87, was issued by the first respondent, on 287. The husband of the petitioner had all the necessary qualifications for being regularized in the post of vocational instructor. He had submitted the particulars regarding his qualifications and he was expecting formal orders regularizing his services. However, he had died on 8. 87, leaving behind the petitioner and his two young children. Based on the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.73, Employment and Services, dated 210. 83 and G.O.Ms.No.225, Labour, dated 12. 72, issued with regard to the granting of assistance to the dependants of the deceased Government servants on compassionate grounds, the petitioner had approached the Director of School Education. The Director of School Education by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.28930/TP/92, dated 13. 92, had asked the petitioner to produce the necessary details. Thereafter, the Director of School Education by his proceedings O.Mu.37388/J5/92, dated 24. 92, had passed an order stating that the petitioner was not entitled to be employed on compassionate grounds. The petitioner had made a further representation to the Director of School Education. However, the Director of School Education had rejected the same, by his proceedings in No.O.Mu.No.152627/J3/93, dated 112. 93, without considering the merits of the claims. Thereafter, the petitioner had made several representations to the authorities concerned. However, her request had not been considered favourably. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4576 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.27758 of 2006. 3. A reply affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the claims made by the petitioner. However, her request had not been considered favourably. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4576 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.27758 of 2006. 3. A reply affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the claims made by the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner cannot be given employment on compassionate grounds, since, such employment is given only to the dependants of the Government servants who had held office in a regular capacity and died in harness, while in service. However, in the case of the petitioner her husband, late S. Venkateswaran, was only a temporary part-time vocational instructor getting a fixed lumpsum honorarium. Since late S. Venkateswaran was not a regular government servant at the time of his death, the scheme meant for the employment of a member of the family of the deceased Government servant, on compassionate grounds, could not be invoked in favour of the petitioner. Further, late S. Venkateswaran had not turned up for duty from the school year 1987-88, and was not on duty on the date of his death. In such circumstances, the relief sought for by the petitioner ought not to be granted by this Court. 4. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs prayed for by her in the present writ petition. Her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds due to the death of her husband late S. Venkateswaran, is not sustainable, since there was no scheme under which she could have been so appointed. Late S. Venkatesaran was only a part-time vocational instructor, who had not been regularized in service. Further, he was not on duty at the time of his death. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.