JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the married daughter of the deceased employee late Sh. Girdhar Das Dhoot for providing appointment on compassionate ground. 3. The petitioner's father late Sh. Girdhar Das Dhoot was working as LDC in the Government Press, Jodhpur. He died while in service on 6.1.2013. Thereafter, an application was filed by the mother of the petitioner for providing appointment to the petitioner, who is married daughter of the deceased employee Sh. Girdhar Das Dhoot. The application filed for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that in the Rules of 1996, there is definition of dependent under Rule 2(g) (c) in which there is no provision to provide appointment to the married daughter. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner is married daughter of deceased employee and as per definition enumerated in the rules of 1996, there is no provision to provide appointment to the married daughter, but in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shreejith L. v. Dy. Director (Education) Kerala & Ors reported in (2012) 7 SCC 248 , the appointment can be given to the married daughters, therefore, it is submitted that direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground even if the petitioner is married daughter of the deceased employee Girdhar Das Dhoot. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner I have perused the definition of dependent enumerated in the Rules of 1996, so also, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the aforesaid judgment, the following facts emerges, which reads as under: "2. In Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.7556 of 2008 father of respondent No.5 who was working as a Peon in a school known as SHGSHS, Kadakkodu, died-in-harness on 14th October, 2000. Respondent No.5 was a minor aged about 16 years at that time. He attained majority on 21st April, 2002. His mother all the same applied for a compassionate appointment under the prevalent Compassionate Employment Scheme to the Deputy Director (Education) who informed her that respondent No.5 could apply to the management for an appointment as and when he attained majority. Respondent No.5 was a minor aged about 16 years at that time. He attained majority on 21st April, 2002. His mother all the same applied for a compassionate appointment under the prevalent Compassionate Employment Scheme to the Deputy Director (Education) who informed her that respondent No.5 could apply to the management for an appointment as and when he attained majority. The petitioner accordingly applied for appointment as a Sanskrit Teacher on 7th February, 2005. It is not in dispute that he had the requisite qualification for appointment against the said post. 3. The post of a Lower Grade Sanskrit Teacher fell vacant in the school on 1st June, 2005, but respondent No.5 was informed that his claim will be considered in the next arising vacancy of a nonteaching staff in the school. Even though a representation made to the District Educational Officer resulted in a direction to the Manager of the institution to consider the claim of respondent No.5 yet an appointment order was issued by the Manager in favour of the appellant herein in preference to the claim made by the former. 4. Aggrieved by the denial of an appointment in his favour, respondent No.5 filed W.P. (C) No. 21503/2006 in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. During the pendency of the said petition a vacancy of a Peon arose in the school, which was offered to him by the Manager. The High Court disposed of the writ petition permitting respondent No.5 to accept the offer made to him by the Manager and to file a separate petition for redressal of his grievance if he continued to feel aggrieved. His appointment as Peon thus remained without prejudice to the respondent-petitioners claim against the post of Junior Sanskrit Teacher in the school. 5. Pursuant to the liberty reserved in his favour, respondent No. 5 filed W.P. (C) No. 16399/2007 in the High Court praying for a certiorari quashing the appointment of the appellant herein and a mandamus directing the Manager to appoint respondent No.5-writ petitioner in his place as a full time Junior Sanskrit Teacher. A single Bench of the High Court allowed the said petition by an order dated 10th December, 2007 quashing the appointment of the appellant herein and directing the Manager to appoint respondent No.5 in his place effective from 1st August, 2006. A single Bench of the High Court allowed the said petition by an order dated 10th December, 2007 quashing the appointment of the appellant herein and directing the Manager to appoint respondent No.5 in his place effective from 1st August, 2006. The above order passed by the High Court was then assailed by the appellant herein in Writ Appeal No.149 of 2008 which appeal has been dismissed by the High Court in terms of the order under challenge before us." 6. Upon perusal of above facts and the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the present set of facts are not identical to that of the facts of the case of Shreejith L. (supra). Therefore, the is petitioner is not entitled for appointment.Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. *******