JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, C.J. 1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. The question arises in the intra Court appeal whether married daughter can complain of violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India in the matter of compassionate appointment. Challenging the policy providing compassionate appointment to be offered to unmarried daughter depending on the earnings of the deceased employee but not a married daughter. 2. The petitioner Purnima filed an application seeking compassionate appointment. Her father was an employee of Durgapur Project Ltd. He died in harness on 10th June, 1998. She applied for compassionate appointment on 14th January, 2004. Thereafter, she filed a writ petition in this Court being W.P. No. 4511 (W) of 2005 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 28.4.2010 directing the employer to consider the application as per rules and practice for appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the applicant was considered and she was found otherwise suitable for offering compassionate appointment, however, with the rider that her marital status should be checked as the policy provided compassionate appointment to be offered only to dependent "unmarried daughter". 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner was married, after hearing her it was communicated on 17th September, 2010 to her that she could not be appointed in terms of the policy. 4. The policy as notified on 31st March, 2008 by the Government of West Bengal, Department of Power and Non-conventional Energy Sources, which has been issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 3(c) of the West Bengal Regulation of Recruitment in the State Government Establishment and Establishments of Public Undertaking, Statutory Bodies, Government Companies and Local Authorities Act, 1999 read with notification dated 1.11.2007 with respect to the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd., Durgapur Projects Ltd. etc. principles and procedures to be followed in dealing with the issue of appointment on compassionate ground to the dependent of the employee has been laid down in para 2'. Para 2' of the said notification is set out below: 2. principles and procedures to be followed in dealing with the issue of appointment on compassionate ground to the dependent of the employee has been laid down in para 2'. Para 2' of the said notification is set out below: 2. One of the dependent of an employee who dies in harness or who retires prematurely on being declared permanently incapacitated may be offered appointment on compassionate ground, subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions: i) the employee has died, or retired on being permanently incapacitated before completing 20 years of service or before attaining the age of 50 years, whichever occurs earlier, ii) the family of the deceased or the retired employee as the case may be, is in need of immediate assistance an appointment of a dependent of the employee is absolutely essential for survival of the family. For the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground in terms of this notification, a dependent shall mean spouse, a son or an unmarried daughter who was solely dependent on the earnings of the deceased or the retired employee 5. It is apparent that compassionate appointment has to be offered to the dependent and the dependent shall mean spouse, a son or an unmarried daughter who was solely dependent on the earnings of the deceased or the retired employee. While the word "daughter" has not been used, the policy uses the words 'unmarried daughter'. Thus married daughters have been excluded from the purview of the policy on compassionate appointment. 6. The Single Bench has opined that refusal to give appointment to the married daughter is discriminatory and violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. Certain decisions have been referred to by the Single Bench. Writ Petition has been allowed. Hence, the intra Court appeal before us. 7. The Division Bench of this Court has permitted to raise the question of vires of the para 2' of the aforesaid notification dated 31st March, 2008. As such, the same has been questioned for the first time in the appeal before us. 8. Mr. L.K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the employer has submitted that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a right. Such policy is exception to the general rule of recruitment. The policy offering compassionate appointment to a dependent who is an unmarried daughter is reasonable one. 8. Mr. L.K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the employer has submitted that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a right. Such policy is exception to the general rule of recruitment. The policy offering compassionate appointment to a dependent who is an unmarried daughter is reasonable one. Since there is no right, there is no question of discrimination. Thus, the Single Bench has erred in law while directing compassionate appointment to be made. The provisions contained in para 2' of the notification dated 31st March, 2008 providing compassionate appointment cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India & Anr. v. Rajkumar, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 . 9. Mr. Susanta Kumar Pal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has supported the impugned order. He has submitted that there is no rhyme or reason to discriminate between unmarried and married daughter even after marriage, the daughter may be dependent upon her father. When married son is entitled for appointment, there is no rhyme or reason to exclude the married daughter from the purview of the dependent to be offered compassionate appointment. He has referred to the decision of this Court in Smt. Chitra Mali (Mondal) v. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in (2011) 1 Cal LJ (Cal) 595 : (2011) 2 WBLR (Cal) 533. He has also submitted that the provisions contained in para 2' of the notification should be struck down. 10. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, in order to appreciate the challenge to para 2' of the notification dated 31st March, 2010 containing the policy as to compassionate appointment, it is to be considered that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Office held by the deceased or retired employee as the case may be is not hereditary one. General rule of appointment is by way of open competition. Office held by the deceased or retired employee as the case may be is not hereditary one. General rule of appointment is by way of open competition. It is an exception carved out in the form of concession to offer compassionate appointment and once concession has not been given in our considered opinion, no writ can lie for enforcing that concession should have been given in the policy to a married daughter and married daughter should also be included particularly when compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as of right but it is within domain of policy. 11. Besides, we also find there is objective purpose behind the definition of the dependent in para 2' of the notification dated 31st March, 2008 issued by the State of West Bengal. Ordinarily, unmarried daughter is considered to be dependent on employee along with son and spouse, if any. The married daughter goes to a different house where she sets up her own establishment and family. When policy confines the compassionate appointment can be offered to unmarried daughter, it cannot be said that the exclusion of the married daughter is arbitrary. After marriage normally daughter goes to other family and is not supposed to be dependent upon the earnings of her father. Considering the provision which has been made by way of concession, it cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal, particularly when there is no enforceable right and concession if not granted cannot be claimed as of right. It is not for the Court to rewrite such policy of compassionate appointment and to dictate the employer as to whom they should provide employment in form of concession/policy. The classification of dependent to the aforesaid extent cannot be termed to be arbitrary. 12. It cannot be said that there is discrimination made out on the basis of sex, as prohibited under Article 15 of the Constitution of India, as classification is based upon status and definition of 'dependent' in the policy of Compassionate Appointment and normally married daughter is not supposed to be dependent upon her father. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Anr. v. Rajkumar (supra) has laid down that claim for compassionate appointment is traceable only to specific scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such a scheme. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Anr. v. Rajkumar (supra) has laid down that claim for compassionate appointment is traceable only to specific scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such a scheme. Once a scheme is abolished, no right can be claimed even with respect to pending application to be dealt with under the scheme, which has been abolished, unless saved. The dependents of the employee who died in harness do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down in paragraphs 8', 11 'and 12' of the judgment thus: 8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons who participate in the selection process. The dependents of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only with the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant. xxx xxx xxx 11. Normal schemes contemplate compassionate appointment on an application by a dependent family member, subject to the applicant fulfilling the prescribed eligibility recruitments, and subject to availability of a vacancy for making the appointment. xxx xxx xxx 11. Normal schemes contemplate compassionate appointment on an application by a dependent family member, subject to the applicant fulfilling the prescribed eligibility recruitments, and subject to availability of a vacancy for making the appointment. Under many schemes the applicant has only a right to be considered for appointment against a specified quota, even if he fulfils all the eligibility criteria; and the selection is made of the most deserving among the several competing applicants, to the limited quota of posts available. In all these schemes there is a need to verify the eligibility and antecedents of the applicant for the financial capacity of the family. There is also a need for the applicant to wait in a queue for a vacancy to arise, or for a selection committee to assess the comparative need of a large number of applicants so as to fill in a limited number of year marked vacancies. 12. Obviously, therefore, there can be no immediate or automatic appointment merely on an application. Several circumstances having a bearing on eligibility, and financial condition, upto the date of consideration may have taken into account. As none of the applicants under the scheme have a vested right, that is in force when the application is actually considered and not the scheme that was in force earlier when the application was made, will be applicable. 14. The Apex Court in the case State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 600 has, laid down that appointment on compassionate ground are exception to the general rule that is provided only in terms of the scheme. The Apex Court has laid down the principles governing the compassionate appointment thus: 13. The Government of Madhya Pradesh had adopted a scheme for appointment on compassionate ground which was circulated to all concerned in terms of a Letter dated 10.6.1994, stating: 'If any government servant dies in harness then either his widow or his legal children (which includes the stepson/daughter also) would be made available service. Service wouldn't be made available to any other member or relative'. The nephew of the deceased employee, therefore, was ineligible for grant of such appointment. The appointment, however, was offered to the respondent without taking into consideration that he had not been able to establish his relationship with the deceased or that he was in fact totally dependent on him. Service wouldn't be made available to any other member or relative'. The nephew of the deceased employee, therefore, was ineligible for grant of such appointment. The appointment, however, was offered to the respondent without taking into consideration that he had not been able to establish his relationship with the deceased or that he was in fact totally dependent on him. 15. In the State of Haryana & Anr. v. Ankur Gupta, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 704 : (2004) 1 WBLR (SC) 206, it has been held that the Court cannot rewrite such policy. The Single Bench proceeded in the matter on sympathetic consideration but sympathetic consideration can be adopted only within the realm of policy but not outside it. The Apex Court has laid down in State of Haryana & Anr. (supra) that the Court cannot give compassionate appointment de hors the statutory policy. 16. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Chitra Mali (Mondal) v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (supra), the married daughter was entitled to claim compassionate appointment. The policy of compassionate appointment expression "daughter" thus it was held that daughter includes married daughter also. However, the policy in question in the present case excludes the married daughters. Expression is not the daughter but unmarried daughter thus married daughter has been specifically ousted from provision of dependent in the policy. Thus when the policy excludes the married daughter obviously it is not for the Court to substitute the policy as the policy cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. There is no question of violation of the provisions contained in Article 15 of the Constitution. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 15(3) provides that nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. Article 15(3) is an enabling provision for providing special treatment for women and children by the State. When State Government has formed a policy in a particular manner and particularly considering concept of dependency and marital status and fact that compassionate appointment is not the realm of right and is not beyond policy it cannot be said that there is any violation of provision contained in Article 15 of the Constitution of India. 17. Classification made and exclusion of married daughter is not arbitrary. 17. Classification made and exclusion of married daughter is not arbitrary. The petitioner cannot claim such appointment as of right. Thus para 2 of the policy contained in the notification dated 31st March, 2008 cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. 18. In our opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. We hold the provision contained in para 2 of the notification dated 31st March, 2008 relating to compassionate appointment to be intra vires. The appeal is allowed. No costs, In view of the above, the connected application, being C.A.N. 5403 of 2012, is disposed of. Appeal allowed