S. RAFAT ALAM, J. This intra Court appeal under the Rules of the Court arises from the judgment/ order of the Honble Single Judge dated 29. 1. 2008 dis missing petitioner-appellants Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 5253 of 2008 against the order canceling her appointment as Shiksha Mitra. 2. We have heard Sri L. C. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 4 and also perused the record. 3. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the appellant that sub-clause (10) of the Government order dated 10. 10. 2005 does not bar selection and ap pointment of a grand daughter of the Chairman and Secretary of the Shiksha Samiti as Shiksha Mitra. He submits that under the aforesaid clause though the appointment of grandson has been prohibited but grand daughters are not included in the definition of close relative as given in sub-clause (10) of the Government order dated 10. 10. 2005, hence the Honble Single Judge fell in error in dismissing the writ petition. 4. We have considered the submissions. The Government order dated 10. 10. 2005 has been issued by the State Government to implement the scheme of Shiksha Mitra to educate the rural people. Sub- clause (10) of the Government order provides in clear terms that near relatives of Sabhapati and Sachiv (Chairman and Secretary) of the Shiksha Samiti cannot be selected as Shikhsa Mitra. It further provides that the relative means father, grand-fa ther, father-in-law (paternal and maternal), son, daughter-in- law, grandson, son-in-law brother, sister, husband, wife, daughter and mother. For ready ref erence sub-clause (10) is reproduced hereinbelow: @ HINDi 5. From a plain reading of the aforesaid clause it is apparent that the object and purpose of providing or placing restriction was to restrict or to forbid the selection of close relatives of the Chairman and Secretary of the Shiksha Samiti, who are in the helm of affairs and thus, doubt will prevail in the mind of the people about the fair selection on merit and therefore, to remove such doubt, near relatives have been disqualified for selection/appointment. Near relatives have been defined as father, grand-father, father-in-law (paternal and maternal), son, daughter-in-law, grandson, son-in-law, brother, sister, husband, wife, daughter and mother. It is to be noticed that sub-clause (10) though mentions grandson but it does not refer to grand-daughter. Near relatives have been defined as father, grand-father, father-in-law (paternal and maternal), son, daughter-in-law, grandson, son-in-law, brother, sister, husband, wife, daughter and mother. It is to be noticed that sub-clause (10) though mentions grandson but it does not refer to grand-daughter. Obviously, grand-daughter is also close relative like grandson. If sub-clause (10) is inter preted as that it only debars grandson and not grand-daughter, it would lead to absurdity and would be violative of equality clause of the Constitution. Article 16 provides that equal opportunity shall be given to all citizens in the matter of employment or appointment to any post under the State and no citizen shall be discriminated in respect of any employment or post under the State only on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex, descend, place of birth, residence or any of them, though it empowers the Parliament or the State legislatures to make law providing special provision for women in respect of employment or post un der the State. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any justification for restricting the exclusion clause only for grandson and not for grand-daughter. Therefore, if sub-clause (10) in the absence of any rationality for differentiation, it is interpreted that it does not include grand-daughter, then it would be in violation of equality clause of the constitution and would cause injustice to grandson, who stand on similar footing to that of grand-daughter. 7. It is well settled principle of interpretation that while interpreting a provision, the Court will adopt such interpretation which is just, reasonable and sensible. There appears no sense in excluding only the grandson from being considered for selection treating them as close relatives and not to grand daughter. When grandson is close relative, grand daughter being at par cannot be held to be not a close relative otherwise it would be contrary to the very ob ject and purpose of providing sub-clause (10) of the Government order. As no ticed above, the object and purpose is to ensure fair selection and also to inspire confidence and transparency in the process of selection. Therefore, we agree with the view taken by the Honble Single Judge that the prohibited list of close relatives indicated in sub-clause (10) of the G. O. is only illustrative in na ture and is not exhaustive. Therefore, we agree with the view taken by the Honble Single Judge that the prohibited list of close relatives indicated in sub-clause (10) of the G. O. is only illustrative in na ture and is not exhaustive. If the grandson is excluded on the ground of being close relative, there appears to be no sound reason not to exclude the daughter and grand-daughter who also comes within the category of close relatives. Moreover, section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that the words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females. Thus, wherever, any provision refers to masculine gender only, it would include females also. Thus, the word grandson should be read as including grand-father. Sub-clause (10) of the G. O. prohibits not only grandsons but also grand-daughters of the Chairman and Secretary of the Shiksha Samiti from selection to the post of Shiksha Mitra. We, therefore, endorse the view taken by the Honble Single Judge. 8. No other point is urged before us. 9. In view of the discussions made above, we do not find any factual or le gal error in the judgment of the Honble Single Judge. 10. Thus, the appeal being without merit, is hereby dismissed Appeal Dismissed. .