ORDER 1. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the order of the respondent, dated 31.10.2005, rejecting his case for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground and consequently for a direction to the respondent to, consider his application for the post of Junior Assistant or Typist in the department and for further orders. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his father, S.P. Ramachandran, was a Head Constable in Namakkal District and during his life time, he married one Pappa and they had a female child by name Selvi. His wife Pappa died on 5.1.1982 due to illness. After her demise, the petitioner’s father married his mother, R. Subbulakshmi on 4.6.1982. After the second marriage, first wife’s daughter, Selvi married one Thiru. S. EIangovan on 5.3.1999. He was self-employed and both of them are living separately. When the petitioner’s father was in service at Namakkal District, he died on 18.12.1999. Except the salary of his father, there was no other source of income. The retirement benefits of the petitioner’s father were paid to petitioner’s mother, as she was the nominee and surviving member of the family. She was also paid family pension at the rate of Rs. 1400/- per month. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per the Government guidelines, the application for appointment on compassionate grounds, should be submitted within three years from the date of death of the government servant and since his father had expired on 18.12.1999, the petitioner ought to have submitted his application on or before 18.12.2002. He passed SSLC on 20.12.2000 and was qualified for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant. Subsequently, he passed Typewriting both in English and Tamil (Junior Grade) in February, 2001 and also acquired senior Grade in English Typewriting. Though he would be completing 18 years of age only in the year-2003, considering the indigent circumstances and that the family pension of Rs. 1400/- was insufficient to meet the basic needs, his mother submitted a representation, dated 29.1.2001 to the District Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District to provide him an appointment as Junior Assistant or Typist on compassionate grounds. Subsequent to the filing of the application, the petitioner had passed +2 Examination on 16.5.2002. 4. 1400/- was insufficient to meet the basic needs, his mother submitted a representation, dated 29.1.2001 to the District Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District to provide him an appointment as Junior Assistant or Typist on compassionate grounds. Subsequent to the filing of the application, the petitioner had passed +2 Examination on 16.5.2002. 4. The petitioner has further submitted that in response to the said application, a communication was sent to his mother, calling upon her to explain as to whether, Mrs. Selvi, daughter of the first wife, Pappa, was living with the deceased before his death and her present status. In reply to the said communication, his mother furnished all the details regarding the marriage of Mrs. Selvi and particulars of separation (sic) to the respondent. To that effect, the petitioner’s sister, Mrs. Selvi also gave a letter, stating that after marriage, she is living separately with her husband, who is self-employed. Subsequently, on 11.3.2005, the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District instructed his mother to send the Income Certificate from the Tahsildar. The required documents viz., (1) No Objection Certificate from the elder sister of the petitioner, (2) Legal Heir Certificate, (3) Income Certificate etc.,were submitted as required by the department. Inspite of production of all the documents as called for by the department, the respondent, by order dated 30.11.2005, has rejected the request of the petitioner on the sole ground that, the petitioner is the son of the second wife and there is no provision in the Government Order to provide appointment to the son of the second wife on compassionate ground. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the relief as stated above. 5. The respondent in his counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioner was born through the second wife of the deceased government servant, S.P. Ramachandran, who served as Grade I Police Constable in the Police Department and died on 18.12.1999, while he was in service. After his demise, one R. Subalakshmi, second wife of the deceased government Servant and mother of the petitioner, has submitted a petition on 29.1.2001, for employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. Her petition was processed and particulars were also obtained. After his demise, one R. Subalakshmi, second wife of the deceased government Servant and mother of the petitioner, has submitted a petition on 29.1.2001, for employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. Her petition was processed and particulars were also obtained. Finally, her request was rejected on 30.10.2005 on the ground that there is no provision to provide employment to the children born through the second wife of the deceased government Servant under Compassionate ground scheme, as per Government Letter No. l25/Bl/85, dated 30.4.1985 and G.O. Ms. No. 2(D) No. 390, Home (Pol.XV) Department, dated 4.12.2000. 6. The respondent has further contended that the appointment under compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right, since the scheme itself is only to mitigate the hardship faced by the family members of the deceased government servant and when there is a restriction in providing employment to the children born to the second wife, no interference is warranted to quash the impugned order and hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Mr. S. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the government have issued orders, providing employment to the dependants of the deceased government Servant, who died in harness, it is applicable to a legitimate child of a government Servant and there cannot be any difference on the ground that the child was born through the second wife. He further submitted that after the demise of the first wife, in order to take care of his six months old female child, the deceased government servant married the petitioner’s mother on 4.6.1982 and therefore, the marriage is valid under the Hindu Marriage Act and the children born to them are legitimate. He further submitted that when the policy of the government is to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to a legitimate child of the government servant, denial of the same on the ground that there is no provision in the rules to appoint a second wife’s son on compassionate ground, is contrary to the policy of the Government. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Mrs. Selvi, daughter of the first wife got married to one Elangovan on 5.3.1999 and that she has also given a No Objection Certificate to the respondent, stating that she is not interested in claiming any government job, as she is living with her husband. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Mrs. Selvi, daughter of the first wife got married to one Elangovan on 5.3.1999 and that she has also given a No Objection Certificate to the respondent, stating that she is not interested in claiming any government job, as she is living with her husband. He further submitted that when all the required documents, such as, Legal Heir Certificate, No Objection Certificate, Non-Employment Certificate issued by the Tahsildar to the petitioner’s mother, Indigent Certificate and Property Certificate etc., were furnished to the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District, he ought to have provided appointment on compassionate grounds and after keeping the application for a considerable period of four years from the date of receipt of application, has arbitrarily rejected the same, stating that there are no provisions in the rule to provide appointment to the second wife’s son. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has passed +2 and Typewriting English senior Grade as well as Tamil Typewriting Junior Grade. As per the recruitment rules, the petitioner possesses required qualifications for the post coming under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds can be given and later, the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission can be obtained under Rule 16(b) of the TNPSC Regulations, 1954 as done in other cases of compassionate appointment. He further submitted that when the petitioner was qualified for appointment, the respondent has unnecessarily delayed the disposal of the representation submitted by the petitioner’s mother, without considering the intention of the beneficial policy to the Government to provide immediate assistance to the family members of the deceased Government servant, who are in indigent circumstance. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order merely states that a legal heir of the second wife of a deceased government servant is not entitled to compassionate appointment, as there is no provision in the government orders and the reasons stated is arbitrary. Referring to the objections stated in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, he further submitted that Government Letter No. 125/B1/85, dated 30.4.1985 and G.O. Ms. No. 2(D) No. 390 Home (Pol. XV) Department dated 4.12.2000, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. Per contra, Mr. Referring to the objections stated in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, he further submitted that Government Letter No. 125/B1/85, dated 30.4.1985 and G.O. Ms. No. 2(D) No. 390 Home (Pol. XV) Department dated 4.12.2000, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. Per contra, Mr. A. Arumugam learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, placing reliance on G.O. Ms. No. 2(D) No. 390 Home (Pol. XV) Department dated 4.12.2000, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment, as there is no provision in the rules to provide appointment to a son of the second wife of the deceased government servant. He has no answer as to why the particulars were called for on earlier occasions. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be relevant to extract few Government Orders, dealing with appointment on compassionate grounds. The Government have issued certain clarifications in G.O. Ms. No. 155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.7.93 with regard to appointment to one member, if another member was already employed in the family of the deceased. The said G.O., is extracted hereunder: “Government of Tamil Nadu Abstract Public Services – Appointment on compassionate grounds indigent circumstances of families of deceased Government servant – Provident Fund & Death – Retirement Gratuity not to be included -Appointment to one member if another member was already employed in the family of the deceased – Clarification – issued. Labour and Employment Department G.O. Ms. No. 155 Dated 16.7.1993 Read: 1. G.O. Ms. No. 225, Labour and Employment, dated 15.2.1972 2. G.O. Ms. No. 560, Labour and Employment, dated 3.8.1977 3. G.O. Ms. No. 998, Labour and Employment, dated 2.5.1981 4. Govt. Lr. No. 18274/N1/82-3, Labour and Employment, dated 9.7.1982 5. G.O. Ms. No. 73, Employment Service, dated 26.10.1983 6. G.O. Ms. No. 8, Employment Service, dated 7.1.1987 7. G.O. Ms. No. 567, Labour and Employment, dated 11.4.1990 Read also: 8. G.O. Ms. No. 23, Labour and Employment, dated 10.2.1993. G.O. Ms. No. 998, Labour and Employment, dated 2.5.1981 4. Govt. Lr. No. 18274/N1/82-3, Labour and Employment, dated 9.7.1982 5. G.O. Ms. No. 73, Employment Service, dated 26.10.1983 6. G.O. Ms. No. 8, Employment Service, dated 7.1.1987 7. G.O. Ms. No. 567, Labour and Employment, dated 11.4.1990 Read also: 8. G.O. Ms. No. 23, Labour and Employment, dated 10.2.1993. ORDER: One of the conditions prescribed under the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds formulated in the G.O., first read above is that the family of the deceased Government servant should be in “indigent circumstances.” Another condition introduced in the G.O., third read above is that if there is already any earning member in the family of the Government servant who died in harness, the other dependants of the deceased Government servant will not be eligible for compassionate appointment. 2. The Government have re-examined the above mentioned conditions. The expression “indigent circumstances.” Another has not been precisely defined. It has been left mostly to the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authorities. Therefore, the service Associations have represented that this condition be deleted. The family of the deceased Government servant is entitled to provident fund accumulations, Family benefit, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, encashment of leave at credit, at the time of death, etc. The Government consider that those amounts or the interest earnings that will accrue on depositing these amount need not be taken into consideration. It is therefore necessary to ascertain whether the family is without any extra help. The Government therefore directs that the criteria for indigent circumstances is that the family should not own any house or landed properties or if owned, the income from which is insufficient to sustain the family. A certificate from the Tahsildar to this effect will have to be produced. 3. In regard to the second condition mentioned in Para 1 above, it is considered that if a member of the family is already in employment and supports the family then the restriction may be applied. When a dependent of the family is employed, the factors to be ascertained are, whether he is regularly employed, who is actually supporting the family. If that person was employed even before the death of the Government servant and was living separately without extending any help to the family. Then the case of other eligible dependants will be considered. 4. When a dependent of the family is employed, the factors to be ascertained are, whether he is regularly employed, who is actually supporting the family. If that person was employed even before the death of the Government servant and was living separately without extending any help to the family. Then the case of other eligible dependants will be considered. 4. However, the restriction that only one of the dependants will be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds will continue. 5. Only the dependants of the deceased Government servant son/wife/husband/unmarried daughter will be eligible for appointments. If the widow is not educationally qualified/eligible for appointment, she could be given a job like sweeper. The Government also directs that a married daughter who is deserted by her husband and living with the family of the deceased Government servant given her consent in writing. 6. Age restrictions of 30 in the case of sons/unmarried daughter or 40 in the case of widow/widower will continue. 7. All cases requiring relaxation will be decided by the committee constituted with reference to para 20 of the Chief Minister’s standing order No. 2 Personnel and Administrative Reforms, dated 9.1.1992. 8. Those orders will be applicable to families of Government servant who have retired on medical invalidation before attaining the age of 50 years. By Order of the Government R. Varadharajulu, Secretary to Government.” 13. Pursuant to the decision of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A. No. 6554 of 1993, dated 15.10.1993 and O.A. No. 5111 of 1994, dated 17.10.1994, the Government have issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 120, Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.6.1995, whereby, certain modifications have been made to the scheme of Compassionate appointment and the said Government Order reads as follows: “Government of Tamil Nadu Abstract Public services – Scheme of Compassionate ground appointments – modifications – Issued. Labour and Employment Department G.O. Ms. No. 120 Dated: 26.6.1995 i. G.O. Ms. No. 225, Labour and Employment, dated 15.2.1972 ii. G.O. Ms. No. 560, Labour and Employment, dated 3.8.1977 iii. G.O. Ms. No. 1579, Labour and Employment, dated 21.7.1981 iv. Govt. Lr. No. 2563/N1/82-2, Labour and Employment, dated 11.3.1982 v. Govt. Lr. No. 43242/N1/81-9, Labour and Employment, dated 1.6.1982 vi. Govt. Lr. No. 4810/Q1/95-3, Labour and Employment, dated 28.2.1995. No. 225, Labour and Employment, dated 15.2.1972 ii. G.O. Ms. No. 560, Labour and Employment, dated 3.8.1977 iii. G.O. Ms. No. 1579, Labour and Employment, dated 21.7.1981 iv. Govt. Lr. No. 2563/N1/82-2, Labour and Employment, dated 11.3.1982 v. Govt. Lr. No. 43242/N1/81-9, Labour and Employment, dated 1.6.1982 vi. Govt. Lr. No. 4810/Q1/95-3, Labour and Employment, dated 28.2.1995. ORDER The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in its orders in O.A. No. 6554 of 1993, dated 15.10.1993 and O.A. No. 5111 of 1994, dated 17.10.1994 had observed that the existing Government Orders under the scheme of Compassionate ground appointments may be reviewed and until such review appointment on compassionate ground may be suspended. Accordingly, the Government in the letter sixth read above had issued instructions to all Heads of Departments to keep in abeyance all appointments and matter relating to compassionate ground appointments. 2. Simultaneously, the Government also reviewed the existing orders under the scheme. After careful review the Government issued the following modification to the scheme. i) The application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within three years of the death of Government servant; ii) The maximum age limit for such appointment be raised to 50 in the case of widows of the deceased Government servants. This order will take effect from the date of the issue of the order. By Order of the Governor P. Shankar Secretary to Government.” 14. Subsequently, the Government, by letter dated 11.10.1995, have issued clarifications, relating to the time limit of three years period specified in the above said government Order and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder: “.....it is clarified that the time limit of three years period specified in the Government Order first cited is applicable only to the dependants of the Government servants those who died while in service on or after 26.6.1995 and the above orders are not applicable to the past cases. Further the Government clarify, that the age limit of 50 years for appointment under the scheme in the case of widows as ordered in the said Government Order is also applicable only to the widows of the Government servants those who died on or after 26.6.1995.” 15. In Police Department, certain persons were appointed on compassionate grounds and to regularise their services, the Government, along with their letter No. 2111/Pol XV/97-1, dated 7.1.1997 have enclosed a check-list sending the proposals for regularisation of services. In Police Department, certain persons were appointed on compassionate grounds and to regularise their services, the Government, along with their letter No. 2111/Pol XV/97-1, dated 7.1.1997 have enclosed a check-list sending the proposals for regularisation of services. The said Check-list is extracted hereunder: “1) Application from the spouse and/or son/daughter of the deceased Government servant. 2) Application also to be made within three years from the date of death of the Government servant (This rule is applicable only after 26.6.1995 and prior to this date, application to be made by the son/daughter within 30 years and by the wife within 40 years). 3) Age: The son/daughter to be within the age of 30 years and wife within the age of 40 years (50 years after 26.6.1995) on the date of death of the Government Servant. 4) Possession of educational qualification needed for the post to which appointed. 5) Certificates to be sent with the proposals: i) Death Certificate ii) Legal Heirship Certificate iii) Educational Qualification Certificate iv) Transfer Certificate v) Community Certificate to be issued not below the rank of Tahsildar vi) Income Certificate vii) Property Certificate viii) Unemployment Certificate of other legal heirs ix) Proforma x) Declaration xi) No Objection Certificates from other legal – heirs. (Applications and No Objection Certificates should have been attested by the Officer of the Police Department concerned.)” Let me now extract some of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Curt dealing with compassionate appointment. 16. The object underlying the provisions for grant of compassionate appointment is explained in the decision of the Supreme Court in Director of Education (Secondary) v. Puspendra Kumar AIR 1998 SC 2230 : (1998) 5 SCC 192 . In paragraph 8 of the judgment, the Apex Court held as follows: “The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions of making appointment by following prescribed procedure. It is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision. Care has, therefore, to be taken that a provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been on compassionate grounds of the dependent of a deceased employee.” 17. In State of U.P. v. Paras Nath AIR 1998 SC 2612 : (1998) 2 SCC 412 : 1998-II-LLJ-454, the Supreme Court held that the purpose of providing employment to the dependent of a Government servant, dying in harness, in preference to anybody else is to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death while in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided that there are rules providing for such appointments. 18. In Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 1596 : (2000) 6 SCC 493 : 2000-II-LLJ-1, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 19, held as follows at p. 8 of LLJ: “We are not called upon to assess the situation but the fact remains that having due regard to the constitutional philosophy to decry a compassionate employment opportunity would neither be fair nor reasonable. The concept of social justice is the yardstick to the justice administration system or the legal justice and as Roscoe Pound pointed out the greatest virtue of law is in its adaptability and flexibility and thus it would be otherwise an obligation for the law Courts also to apply the law depending upon the situation since the law is made for the society and whatever is beneficial for the society, the endeavour of the law Court would be to administer justice having due regard in that direction.” 19. In the above reported judgment, while considering the necessary provisions of the tri-parte agreement, NJSC of 1983 and 1989 in the matter of providing employment to the deceased family, after extracting the relevant clause of NJSC agreement 1983 and the tri-parted agreement 1989, the Supreme Court, has observed as follows: “8. The employer being Steel Authority of India, admittedly an authority within the meaning of Article 12, has thus an obligation to act in terms of the avowed objective of social and economic justice as enshrined in the Constitution but has the authority in the facts of the matters under consideration acted like a model and an ideal employer — it is in this factual backdrop, the issue needs an answer as to whether we have been able to obtain the benefit of constitutional philosophy of social and economic justice or not. Have the lofty ideals which the founding fathers placed before us has any effect in our daily life — the answer cannot however but be in the negative — what happens to the constitutional philosophy as is available in the Constitution itself which we ourselves have so fondly conferred on to ourselves. The socialistic pattern of society as envisaged in the Constitution has to be attributed its full meaning. A person dies while taking the wife to a hospital and the cry of the lady for bare subsistence would go unheeded on a certain technicality. The breadearner is no longer available and prayer for compassionate appointment would be denied as “it is likely to open a Pandora’s box” — this is the resultant effect of our entry into the new millennium. Can the law Courts be mute spectators in the matter of denial of such a relief to the horrendous sufferings of an employee’s family by reason of the death of the breadearner? It is in this context this Court’s observations in Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka seem to be rather apposite.” 20. In a recent decision in State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh (2007) 4 SCC 778 , at Paragraphs 7 and 10, the Apex Court held as follows: “7. Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. In a recent decision in State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh (2007) 4 SCC 778 , at Paragraphs 7 and 10, the Apex Court held as follows: “7. Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 16(2) Protects citizens against discrimination in respect of any employment or office under the State on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex and descent. It is so well settled and needs no restatement at our end that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process. Such appointments are required to be made on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Dependents of employees died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer. 10. There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant bank is required to consider the request for compassionate appointment only in accordance with the scheme framed by it and no discretion as such is left with any of the authorities to make compassionate appointment de hors the scheme. In our considered opinion the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules, etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by “way of scheme or instructions as the case may be.” The Supreme Court further held that it is well settled that the hardship of the dependent does not entitle one to compassionate appointment, de hors the scheme or the statutory provisions, as the case may be.” 21. In Sushma Gosain and Others v Union of India AIR 1989 SC 1976 : (1989) 4 SCC 468 : 1990-I-LLJ-169, the Supreme Court, at paragraph 8 to 10, held as follows at p. 170 of LLJ: “6. We heard counsel on both sides and gave our anxious consideration to the problem presented. In Sushma Gosain and Others v Union of India AIR 1989 SC 1976 : (1989) 4 SCC 468 : 1990-I-LLJ-169, the Supreme Court, at paragraph 8 to 10, held as follows at p. 170 of LLJ: “6. We heard counsel on both sides and gave our anxious consideration to the problem presented. It seems to us that the High Court has made the order in a mechanical way and if we may say so, the order lacks the sense of justice. Sushma Gosain made an application for appointment as Lower Division Clerk as far back in November, 1982. She had then a right to have her case considered for appointment on compassionate ground under the aforesaid government memorandum. In 1983, she passed the trade test and the interview conducted by the DGBR. There is absolutely no reason to make her to wait till 1985 when the ban on appointment of ladies was imposed. The denial of appointment is patently arbitrary and cannot be supported in any view of the matter. 9. We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. 10. In the result, we allow the appeal and in reversal of the order of the High Court, we direct respondent 2 to appoint Sushma Gosain -appellant 1 in the post to which she has already qualified. We further direct that she shall be appointed in an appropriate place in Delhi itself. The appointment shall be made within three weeks from today.” 22. In the case on hand, the first wife of the deceased Government servant died on 5.1.1982 and after her demise, petitioner’s father married one R. Subalakshmi, who is none other than the sister of the first wife. As per the Hindu Law, second marriage is perfectly valid in law and the children born to the second wife are legitimate for the purpose of inheriting the property and for sanction of the retirement benefits, such as pension, gratuity etc. As per the Hindu Law, second marriage is perfectly valid in law and the children born to the second wife are legitimate for the purpose of inheriting the property and for sanction of the retirement benefits, such as pension, gratuity etc. 23. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme or executive instructions or rules, etc. framed by the employer. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right de hors the rules. The object of providing compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased government servant, who died in harness, is to tide over the sudden crisis, on account of death of the bread-earner and it is in the nature of exception of general rule. But such an exception of providing appointment on compassionate grounds should not be contrary to the main rule or scheme, prescribing the eligibility condition to the post, for which, the legal heir of the Government servant has applied. 24. In Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 301 : 1996-I-LLJ-1105, the Supreme Court held that the very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employee, who died in harness, is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. 25. Let me now examine the Government Order relied on by the learned counsel for the State. G.O.(2D) No. 390, Home (Pol.XV) Department, dated 4.12.2000 which reads as follows: “Government of Tamil Nadu Abstract Police - Cuddalore District - Thiru.K.Selvakumar, S/o. Late Kuppusamy, Head Constable appointed as Temporary Junior Assistant under Compassionate ground - Misrepresentation of facts about the survival of the first wife of the deceased - Cancellation of appointment and consideration of the request of Selvi Mannangatti, daughter of the deceased born through first wife for appointment on compassionate grounds - Orders - Issued. Home (Pol. XV) Department G.O. (2D) No. 390 Dated: 4.12.2000 Read: 1. From the Director General of Police, Chennai Letter No. ref 18/68367/ TPB.2(1)/D6, dated 18.6.1987. 2. Orders dated 17.1.1994 of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2176 of 1992. 3. From the Director General of Police, Letter No. 98588/TPB.II(1)/92, dated 6.5.1994. 4. From the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Letter No. 6702/CP.A2/95 dated 30.6.2000. ORDER: Thiru. From the Director General of Police, Chennai Letter No. ref 18/68367/ TPB.2(1)/D6, dated 18.6.1987. 2. Orders dated 17.1.1994 of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2176 of 1992. 3. From the Director General of Police, Letter No. 98588/TPB.II(1)/92, dated 6.5.1994. 4. From the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Letter No. 6702/CP.A2/95 dated 30.6.2000. ORDER: Thiru. Kuppusamy, Head Constable 1049 died on 31.7.75, while in service. His son K. Selvakumar was appointed as temporary Junior Assistant on 28.8.1982 on compassionate grounds. On 30.8.1983, Tmt. Pachiammal, the first wife of the deceased Kuppusamy filed a petition seeking job for her daughter Selvi Mannangatti on compassionate ground. When the request of the said Tmt. Pachiammal was under consideration, Thiru K. Selvakumar filed O.A. before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking regularisation of his temporary services in the cadre of Junior Assistant. The Tribunal in its order dated 17.1.1994, ordered to issue orders within three months. Hence, it has been proposed to request the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to convey its concurrence to regularise the temporary services of Thiru. Selvakumar as Junior Assistant in Police Department and accordingly, the Commission has been addressed in Letter No. 65169/Pol.XV/97-2, dated 26.10.1995. However, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in its letter, dated 30.6.2000 has refused to give its concurrence and indicated that the Government may take a decision based on the circumstances of the case. 2. The Government have examined the issue in detail with particular reference to the following, (i) It is evident that the second wife of the deceased Kuppusamy as well as the petitioner, Thiru. K. Selvakumar have suppressed the fact about the survival of the first wife and the daughter born through her of the deceased Head Constable Kuppusamy for getting job for themselves; (ii) It is also evident that the Superintendent of Police and the office of the Director General of Police have miserably failed to verify the facts before giving job to Thiru. K. Selvakumar; (iii) it is unfortunate that the request made by the first wife of the deceased Kuppusamy on 30.8.1983 for job to her daughter has not been properly acted upon, which has helped Thiru. K. Selvakumar; (iii) it is unfortunate that the request made by the first wife of the deceased Kuppusamy on 30.8.1983 for job to her daughter has not been properly acted upon, which has helped Thiru. K. Selvakumar to continue in the job, leading to acquiring of service rights for which he is not legally entitled, (iv) Being Police Department, a person, who got his job by suppressing vital facts with ulterior motive to help his own cause much to the detriment of a lawful claimant should not be allowed to continue in job. On the other hand, if his services are regularised, he is also likely to get promotion and deal with sensitive issues till his retirement on 31.5.2018 by getting all the benefits. (v) Further the said Thiru.K.Selvakumar had given the following undertaking on 17.8.88 in connection with the regularisation of his service. “I hereby declare that the facts given by me above are to the best of my knowledge correct. If any of the facts herein mentioned is found to be incorrect or false at a future date, my services may be terminated. Dated: 17.8.88. Sd/- (K. SELVAKUMAR)” Signature of the Candidate 3. After detailed examination of the issues leading to the temporary appointment of Thiru. K. Selvakumar, son of the late Kuppusamy, Head Constable born through his second wife in the Police Department on compassionate grounds without taking into account the vital fact of survival of the first wife of the deceased and his daughter born through her, which came to the light by a petition submitted by the said first wife and in the light of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to give concurrence to regularise the services of the above said Thiru K. Selvakumar as Junior Assistant in the Police Department, the Government have decided to agree with the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and cancel the appointment orders issued to the said Thiru. K. Selvakumar as the particulars given by him regarding the legal heirs of his deceased father Kuppusamy were found to be incorrect and false. The Government accordingly passed the following orders: i) By involving the undertaking given by the said Thiru. K. Selvakumar as the particulars given by him regarding the legal heirs of his deceased father Kuppusamy were found to be incorrect and false. The Government accordingly passed the following orders: i) By involving the undertaking given by the said Thiru. K. Selvakumar, temporary Junior Assistant in Police department on 17.8.1988, the Government direct that the appointment order issued to him appointing him as Junior Assistant in police department with effect from 28.8.1982 be cancelled by following usual procedure. ii) To consider the request of the first wife Tmt. Pachiammal of the deceased Kuppusamy, Head Constable for appointment of her daughter Selvi Mannangatti in the police department on compassionate ground if she fulfils all the conditions prescribed for such appointment. 4. The Director General of Police should take necessary action immediately and send a copy of cancellation orders with reference to paragraph 3(i) above for reference and record. (By Order of The Governor) Santha Sheela Nair, Secretary to Government.” 26. Secretary of the Government makes it clear that the above said Government Order has no relevance to the facts of the present case, as the Government have not excluded the son of a illegally wedded second wife of the government Servant. The scheme of providing compassionate appointment in Police Department, as revealed in the Government Letter, dated 7.1.1997 is that the application should be submitted by the spouse and/or son/daughter of the deceased Government servant, within three years from the date of death of the Government servant (this rule is applicable only after 26.6.1995 and prior to this date, the application should be made by the son/daughter within 30 years and by the wife within 40 years). The claimant, viz., son/daughter should be aged within 30 years and wife should be within the age of 40 years (50 years after 26.6.1995) on the date of death of the Government servant. The aspirant should possess necessary educational qualification needed for the post to which he has applied on compassionate grounds. Necessary certificates to be enclosed along with the application for compassionate appointment are as follows: i) Death Certificate ii) Legal Heirship Certificate iii) Educational Qualification Certificate iv) Transfer Certificate v) Community Certificate vi) Income Certificate vii) Property Certificate viii) Unemployment Certificate of other legal heirs. ix) Proforma x) Declaration xi) No Objection Certificates from other legal heirs.” 27. Necessary certificates to be enclosed along with the application for compassionate appointment are as follows: i) Death Certificate ii) Legal Heirship Certificate iii) Educational Qualification Certificate iv) Transfer Certificate v) Community Certificate vi) Income Certificate vii) Property Certificate viii) Unemployment Certificate of other legal heirs. ix) Proforma x) Declaration xi) No Objection Certificates from other legal heirs.” 27. Perusal of the documents enclosed in the typed set of papers reveal that all the documents referred to in the Government Letter, dated 7.1.1997, have been furnished to the Superintendent of Police, respondent herein. The petitioner’s mother was paid only Rs. 1,400/- as family pension. The petitioner has produced an Unemployment Certificate, dated 4.3.2002 issued by the Tahsildar to the petitioner’s mother to prove their indigenous family circumstances. After receiving all the documents and certificates, by letter dated 20.11.2003, the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal has raised a query as to whether the petitioner’s elder sister, Smt. Selvi was living with the family, before the death of the petitioner’s father and also her present address. In response to the above, Smt. E. Selvi, in her letter, dated 28.11.2003, had informed the respondent that she was living with her father and petitioner’s mother, Subbulakshmi and after attaining majority, she got married on 5.3.1999, and living separately with her husband. In the said letter, she has also given no objection to the petitioner to secure appointment on compassionate grounds. After nearly two years, by letter dated 11.3.2005, the Superintendent of Police, has requested the petitioner to meet the concerned Section Superintendent with the Income Certificate obtained from the Tahsildar. Having received all the certificates, the respondent has simply rejected the case of the petitioner on the sole ground that there is no provision in the rules to provide appointment to a legal heir of the second wife. 28. It is well settled legal position that when the order is passed by a statutory authority, the same should be supported by the reasons contained therein. The statutory authority cannot be permitted to support his order on the basis of statements made in the counter affidavit, reliance can be made on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., AIR 1978 SC 851 : (1978) 1 SCC 405 , and at Paragraph 8, the Apex Court held as follows: “8. The statutory authority cannot be permitted to support his order on the basis of statements made in the counter affidavit, reliance can be made on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., AIR 1978 SC 851 : (1978) 1 SCC 405 , and at Paragraph 8, the Apex Court held as follows: “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Commr., of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 . “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” 29. The above position of law has been restated in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., v. Darius Shapur Chenai AIR 2005 SC 3520 : (2005) 7 SCC 627 , and at Paragraph 24 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows: “When an order is passed by a statutory authority, the same must be supported either on the reasons stated therein or on the grounds available therefor in the record. A statutory authority cannot be permitted to support its order relying on or on the basis of the statements made in the affidavit de hors the order or for that matter de hors the records.” 30. Reading of the Government Orders makes it clear that there is a scheme framed by the department to provide compassionate appointment to the family of the deceased government servant. Reading of the Government Orders makes it clear that there is a scheme framed by the department to provide compassionate appointment to the family of the deceased government servant. Marriage between the deceased government servant and the petitioner’s mother was solemnised only after the death of his first wife and therefore, the marriage was valid in law, as per Hindu Marriage Act. Children born out of the marriage are entitled to inherit the properties and entitled to retirement benefits. There cannot be a rule or Government Order restricting their statutory rights. The application of the petitioner’s mother requesting appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds is as per the scheme framed by the Government. Though compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, when the scheme postulates a provision to mitigate the hardship to the members of the family, the respondent is bound to render a helping hand to the indigenous family and he cannot keep the application pending for a long time and it is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court. 31. The reasons adduced by the respondent that the petitioner is not entitled to seek for compassionate appointment, as there is no provision to appoint second wife’s son, is arbitrary, failure to exercise his jurisdiction with reference to the scheme and therefore, it is liable to be rejected. As stated supra, G.O. (2D) No. 390, Home (Pol. XV) Department, dated 4.12.2000, has no relevance to the legitimate claim of a son born to the second wife of the deceased. As the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is traceable to the scheme, the petitioner’s application ought to have been considered on merits. When the petitioner has satisfied the requirements for appointment under the scheme and having received all the documents/certificates, rejection of the application relying on a irrelevant Government Order, would defect the object of the beneficial scheme. The petitioner has made out a strong case for issue of the Writ as prayed for. 32. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in anyone of the posts, suitable to his educational and technical qualifications within four months from the date of receipt of the order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Writ petition allowed.