D K. Arora, J.:- 1. Notice on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Prashant Arora, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no. 3. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. 3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 16.07.2009 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi, by which claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected indicating therein that there is no provision for giving appointment to daughter-in-law in the Government Order dated 04.09.2000. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the mother-in-law of the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in Kanya Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Madhauganj, district Hardoi, who died in harness on 21.08.2006. During life time, the mother-in-law of the petitioner executed a registered will deed on 21.11.2005 by bequeathing all the movable and immovable properties as well as service benefits in favour of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner after getting succession certificate from the competent court has been given all retiral benefits of her mother-in-law but she was not given appointment under the provisions of Dying-in-Harness Rules. 6. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that after repeated reminders her claim was rejected by the District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi vide order dated 16.07.2009. The claim of the petitioner is that she possessed all the requisite qualifications for being appointed on Class-III post being legal successor of her mother-in-law/deceased employee and the husband of the petitioner is drinker and careless person, is unable to perform any duty. The petitioner is having three sons and due to financial crunch unable to pull on her family. 7. The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the cases reported in 2006 (2) UPLBEC 1972, Sanyogita Rai (Smt.) vs. State of U.P. & others, 2003 (3) UPLBEC 2582 , Urmila Devi (Smt.) vs. U.P. Power Corporation, Lucknow and others, 2008 (3) AWC 2688 , Smt. Geeta Singh vs. State of U.P. & others, 2008 (1) AWC 1035, Zila Panchyat, Kaushambi and another vs. Lalti Devi and another. 8. 8. The counsel for the opposite party no.3, Sri Prashant Arora submitted that in the Government Order dated 04.09.2000 there is no provision for giving appointment on compassionate ground to the daughter-in-law, as the same provides for appointment under the provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974 (here-in-after referred to as the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974) to the dependents of the deceased employee and as per the provisions, means son, unmarried or widowed daughter, wife or husband. He further submits that this controversy has been considered recently by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 236 of 2009, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Hardoi vs. Madhu Mishra and others reported in 2009 (27) LCD 995. 9. I have heard the submissions of counsel for the respective parties and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the petitioner is basically claiming employment on the basis of registered Will of her mother-in-law dated 21.11.2005, by which all movable and immovable properties including service benefits were transferred in her favour and after getting succession certificate the petitioner has already received all service benefits of her mother-in-law. Now, being the successor, she is claiming an employment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 on the ground that her husband is drinker and careless person and unable to perform duties and on account of financial crisis she is unable to pull on studies of her three sons and take care of her family. 10. The perusal of the impugned order 16.07.2009 reveals that she has been replied by the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi in pursuance of her request vide letter dated 30.03.2007 and thereafter on 05.06.2008 and vide letter dated 16.07.2009 the District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi replied to the letter of the petitioner and requested her not to repeatedly make correspondence on the issue and waste the time of the office. 11. 11. As far as two judgments, namely, Sanyogita Rai (Smt.) vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2006 (2) UPLBEC 1972 and Urmila Devi (Smt.) vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow and another reported in 2003 (3) UPLBEC 2582 are concerned, the same were considered by the Division Bench of this Court, presided by Hon'ble the Chief Justice in Special Appeal No. 236 of 2009, reported in 2009 (27) LCD 995, and held that the decisions of learned Single Judge in those cases are not in conformity with the well settled principles of law. Those decisions ignore the basic principle that while construing the provision liberally, the word, which has no nexus and out of context, cannot be added. And both the decisions were overruled. 12. In the matter of Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi and another vs. Lalti Devi and another (Supra) the Division Bench while agreeing with the judgment of Smt. Urmila Devi vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. (Supra) held that the daughter-in-law, who becomes a member of family of her husband, is included in the definition of 'family' of father-in-law and after his death, in the absence of any other legal heir, she is entitled to get benefits provided all other conditions as required in law for such recruitment are fulfilled and the said right of daughter-in-law would not be available if she has remarried or repatriated to her parents place. 13. The Division Bench in the matter of Basic Shiksha Adhikari Hardoi vs. Madhu Mishra and others reported in 2009 (27) LCD 995, while considering the provisions of Government Order dated 04.09.2000, issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers, conferred under Section 13 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1972 with respect to the appointment on compassionate ground of the employees of the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, also examined the definition (2) © of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 and came to the conclusion that the daughter-in-law has not been mentioned either in the Rule, 1974 or the instruction. The Division Bench further observed that the compassionate ground appointment is provided to the dependents of the deceased employee which according to the instructions means son, unmarried or widowed daughters, wife or husband, as the case may be and includes those relations under Rule 1974 but none provides for appointment on compassionate ground to the daughter-in-law. The Division Bench further observed that the compassionate ground appointment is provided to the dependents of the deceased employee which according to the instructions means son, unmarried or widowed daughters, wife or husband, as the case may be and includes those relations under Rule 1974 but none provides for appointment on compassionate ground to the daughter-in-law. The Scheme for compassionate appointment provides that the dependent of the deceased employee shall mean or include son, unmarried or widow daughter, wife or husband, which amounts to adding the daughter-in-law in the category of dependents of the deceased employee. It is further observed by the Division Bench that it is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a constitutional right and one is entitled for the same only in accordance with the Scheme framed in this regard and inclusion of daughter-in-law in the Scheme of compassionate appointment would enlarge the Scheme of the Act, which is not permissible in law. The Division Bench while overriding the judgment of Smt. Urmila Devi (Supra) and Smt. Sanyogita Rai (Supra) observed that the judgment of the State of U.P. and others vs. Rajendra Kumar and others 1999 (83) FLR 532 is concerned, the grand son of the deceased employee has no bearing so far as the decision in the appeal in question is concerned. 14. This Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Rajender Kumar and others reported in 1999 (83) FLR 523 (Division Bench) while interpreting the provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependent's of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974 took the view that Rule 2 © that word "include" cannotes that the persons mentioned in Rule 2 © are not exhaustive of the meaning of the word family but are only inclusive. This implies that the persons not mentioned in the family can also be included in the definition and held that the dependents grand son is entitled to the benefit of Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. 15. This implies that the persons not mentioned in the family can also be included in the definition and held that the dependents grand son is entitled to the benefit of Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. 15. Subsequently, another single Judge in the case of Smt. Kushum Devi vs. State of U.P. 2001 (3) ESC 1283 placing reliance on the judgment of State of U.P. and others vs. Rajender Kumar and others (supra) took a view that if divorced daughter was dependent on her father, she cannot be excluded and has to be included within the meaning of word "family" since such a dependent daughter who is divorcee, has to be treated at par with an unmarried daughter or widowed daughter as all of them continue to be the liability of their father as member of the family of their father. 16. The Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 342 of 2005, District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Dehat & others vs. Nitin Kumar Mishra following the judgment of State of U.P. and others vs. Rajender Kumar and others (supra) dismissed the appeal prreferred by District Basic Education Officer wherein also grandson was included in the definition of family. 17. Against the said judgment Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. (s) 26041 of 2005 has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 13.02.2006 and order of High Court both by the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench have been set aside. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below:- "Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following order. Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeal is allowed, the orders of the High Court both by the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench are set aside." 18. This Court in the Writ Petition No.22362 of 2007, Savitri Devi vs. The State of U.P. and others vide judgment and order dated 14.05.2007 while dealing with the matter of divorced daughter for grant of compassionate appointment pleased to observe as under:- "Thus, inevitable conclusion is that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has not approved the view that the persons mentioned in Rule 2 © are not exhaustive of the meaning of the word family but are only inclusive and the persons not mentioned in the definition of "family" can also be included in the definition of the word "family". Rule making authority till date has not at all chosen to include divorced daughter at par with "unmarried daughter" or "widowed daughter". This Court cannot give direction to redefine the definition of the "family" by bringing in its fold the "divorced daughter" also. Determination of policy and formulation of Rules are essentially legislative functions which cannot be usurped by this Court in the garb of purposeful constructions. In the present case, reason for not accepting the claim of the petitioner is that she is "divorced daughter" and till date "divorced daughter" has not been included in the definition of family, as such there is no fault in the view which has been taken by the authorities concerned. This Court cannot give mandatory direction to include the "divorced daughter" in the definition of family and it is for the State Government to take decision in this regard as definition of family is in realm of policy decision." 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of I.G. (Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi reported in 2007 (6) SCC 162 pleased to observe as under:- "7. Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the breadearner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion." 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan vs. Laxmi Devi and others reported in (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 205 pleased to hold as under:- "19. It is a trite law that a regular vacancy cannot be filled up except in terms of the recruitment rules as also upon compliance with the constitutional scheme of equality. In view of the Explanation appended to Rule 2 (a), for the purpose of this case we would, however, assume that such regular appointment was not necessarily to be taken recourse to. In such an event sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) as also the Explanation appended thereto would be rendered unconstitutional. 20. In view of the Explanation appended to Rule 2 (a), for the purpose of this case we would, however, assume that such regular appointment was not necessarily to be taken recourse to. In such an event sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) as also the Explanation appended thereto would be rendered unconstitutional. 20. The provision of law which ex facie violates the equality clause and permits appointment through the side-door being unconstitutional must be held to be impermissible and in any event requires strict interpretation …………." 21. As a result of foregoing discussions, I am of the considered view that the scheme providing for compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee does not include daughter-in-law. It is well settled position that compassionate appointment is not a constitutional right and is in pursuance to an exception carved out in the shape of scheme and, therefore, it has to be strictly complied with in its letter and spirit. The inclusion of any other relation in the definition of family of the scheme of compassionate appointment would amount to enlarge the scope of the scheme. Needless to say that the object of the scheme to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of death of sole bread-earner by giving employment to the dependents of the deceased government employee defined under the scheme within a reasonable time as prescribed and the scheme cannot be used as devices to ensure appointment as a matter of right. 22. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis, this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner, who is daughter-in-law of the deceased employee, does not fall under the definition of family as per the Scheme/Rules and is not entitled for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 read with Government Order dated 04.09.2000. 23. Thus, the present writ petition does not warrant any interference by this Court. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.