JUDGMENT Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 15.04.2014 passed by opposite party no.1-District Inspector of Schools, District Hardoi, by means of which the representation of the petitioner for giving her appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1974') has been rejected. 2. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the father of the petitioner, namely late Siya Ram, was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Rajkiya Inter College, Hardoi, District Hardoi, who died on 17.09.2010 during service period leaving behind his wife and the petitioner (married daughter) residing with her mother. After the death of her father the petitioner moved an application to opposite party no.3-Principal Rajkiya Inter College, Hardoi, District Hardoi on 18.12.2013 for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules but no action been taken thereon. The petitioner thereafter moved another application to the opposite party no.1 on 03.01.2014 for ventilating her grievance but no heed was paid thereon. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that when no heed was paid on her applications, she being constrained to approach this Court by filing writ petition No. 305(SS) of 2014 in re: ( Sheetal Singh vs. D.I.O.S. Hardoi and others) and this court vide order dated 13.02.2014 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the opposite party no.1 to decide her pending representation, by means of which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, has been rejected on the ground that she, being not a member of the family of the petitioner, cannot be appointed on compassionate ground under the Rules, 1974, as she is married with one Sri Manish Kumar. 3. 3. Further submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the father of the petitioner was the only bread earner for his family members and the petitioner and her mother are facing double jeopardize on one hand their bread earner had been snatched away by the cruel hands of the God and on the other hand the opposite parties are adopting hostile attitude by not giving her appointment under the provisions of Dying in Harness Rules, therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court once again by filing the instant writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 15.04.2014, contained as annexure no.1 to the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner while arguing his case placed reliance upon the case of (Kumari Deepa Ashok Kulkarni vs. The Superintending Engineer, Pune Irrigation Project Circle and another), wherein the High Court of Bombay has held that married daughter has right for compassionate appointment which fully has been overlooked by the opposite party no.1 5. Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, while opposing the writ petition has submitted that a married daughter does not fall within the category of family member of deceased Government servant as per definition clause given under the aforesaid Rules, 1974. 6. The definition of 'family' as per the amended definition clause 2(c) provides as under: - "2(c)'family' shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant: (i) wife or husband; (ii) sons/adopted sons; (iii) unmarried daughters, unmarried adopted daughters, widowed daughters and widowed daughters-in-law; (iv) unmarried brothers, unmarried sisters and widowed mother dependent on the deceased Government servant, if the deceased Government servant was unmarried; (v) aforementioned relations of such missing Government servant who has been declared as "dead" by the competent court; Provided that if a person belonging to any of the above mentioned relations of the deceased Government servant is not available or is found to be physically and mentally unfit and thus, ineligible for employment in Government service, then only in such situation the word "family" shall also include the grandsons and the unmarried grand daughters of the deceased Government servant dependent on him." 7. In support of his submission learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court, in the case of (Sunita Bhadooria(Smt.) vs. State of U.P. and another) reported in [ (2006) 1 UPLBEC 754 ]. In support of his submission learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court, in the case of (Sunita Bhadooria(Smt.) vs. State of U.P. and another) reported in [ (2006) 1 UPLBEC 754 ]. Paragraphs 40 and 41, of the said case reads as under: - "40. Even otherwise, there is nothing in the petition to show as to what had been the financial condition of the petitioner's family i.e. the family of the petitioner's husband by which the petitioner being the wife is a member and we also fail to understand as to how she could claim to be member of two families simultaneously for the purpose of the Social Welfare Legislation like the Rules, 1974. 41. We do not find any force in the submissions made by Shri A.P.N. Giri. The petition is totally misconceived and the Court condemns and deprecates the practice of filing petition without proper pleadings and furnishing full particulars. Filing this kind of petition is not in the interest either the litigant or the Court or of the Society as a whole and on the other hand amounts to obstructing the cause of justice." 8. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel further relied upon the case of (Smt. Reeta Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) reported in (2013) 2 UPLBEC 1540 . Paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: - "7. Having perused the relevant rules and the judgment aforesaid the Government order dated 22nd December 2011 recites the definition of the word 'family' as wife or husband, son/adopted son, unmarried daughters, widowed daughter, widowed daughter-in-law, unmarried brother and sister dependent on the deceased employee and a widowed mother (if the deceased employee had died unmarried). The claim, therefore, has been rejected as a divorced daughter does not fall within the definition of a widowed daughter." 9. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel again submits that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment on the ground, firstly, on the date of death of her father the petitioner was a married daughter, secondly, on the date of moving the application for compassionate appointment she was not a divorced daughter. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel again submits that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment on the ground, firstly, on the date of death of her father the petitioner was a married daughter, secondly, on the date of moving the application for compassionate appointment she was not a divorced daughter. It is also submitted that admittedly, the petitioner is a married woman and as per definition given in rule 2(c) of the aforesaid Rules, 1974, she does not fall within the category of dependent.He further relied upon the case of (Sarita Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) reported in 2012 (91) ALR, 323. Paragraph 15 of the aforesaid decision reads as under: - "15. In all the aforesaid cases, during the pendency of the applications, the scheme has been changed and a new scheme has been introduced by virtue of which the claim has been denied. The claim of the petitioner may be considered under the scheme which was available at the time of death and at the time of the moving of the application. In the present case, there is no such situation. The law which existed at the time of death, moving of the application and even today remains the same. The petitioner became ineligible for compassionate ground on account of her own act. The petitioner ceases to be family member of the deceased family after the marriage and became the member of her husband family. Moreover, it is not expected from her to maintain the family of her parents. It would be more appropriate that the other member of the family may make a claim if admissible in law. The object of giving compassionate appointment stands frustrated. Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 provides compassionate appointment to a member of family. Therefore, relevant date is the date of appointment. On the date of appointment, the claimant should be eligible. If the claimant is not eligible on the date of appointment, she is not entitled to be appointed." 10. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 30.05.2014, passed in Special Appeal No. 553 of 2014 (Gayatri Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) by a Division Bench of this Court. If the claimant is not eligible on the date of appointment, she is not entitled to be appointed." 10. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 30.05.2014, passed in Special Appeal No. 553 of 2014 (Gayatri Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) by a Division Bench of this Court. Paragraph 4 of the aforesaid judgment and order reads as under: - " The object of giving employment to the dependent of the deceased employee, who died in harness is to allow the family of tide over immediate financial crises which is faced by the family losing the bread earner during the period of his service. The unmarried, divorced or widowed daughter is covered in the definition of the family. Under the Rules of 1974 a married daughter, however, is not covered and cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right." 11. I have considered the submissions of rival parties. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner in support of his arguments placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Kumari Deepa Ashok Kulkarni vs. The Superintending Engineer, Pune, wherein the Bench of Bombay High Court held that married daughter has right for compassionate appointment. 13. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner, does not apply to the present case as in the State of Uttar Pradesh special rules for giving appointment on compassionate ground have been framed and in the definition of family, the married daughter has not been included. 14. It is settled position of law that a lady after marriage becomes a member of other family and as such she is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness 1974 Rules. 15. A perusal of the impugned order dated 15.04.2014 shows that the wife of the deceased Siya Ram namely Smt. Sarita Devi is already posted as Basic Health Worker at Primary Health Center, Bawan, District Hardoi under the Chief Medical Officer, Hardoi and the petitioner who is a married daughter of late Siya Ram, is not a family member of the deceased family as per clause 2(c) of the definition clause of the Rules, 1974, therefore, the question of facing hardship on account of the death of late Siya Ram, to his family, does not arise at all. 16. 16. While considering the claim for compassionate employment the court has to consider that as to whether compassionate employment can be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. 17. From the aforesaid discussion this court is of considered view that the scheme providing for compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee does not include married daughter. It is well settled position of law 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 enlarging the scope of the scheme. Needless to say that the object of the scheme is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which if faces at the time of death of sole bread-earner by giving employment to the deponents of the deceased government employee defined under the scheme within a reasonable time as prescribed and the scheme cannot be used as to tool to ensure appointment as a matter of right. 18. In view of the above, this court does not find the petitioner, entitled for compassionate appointment as she is not covered under the Rules, 1974. 19. The petition being wholly misconceived, is hereby dismissed.