JUDGMENT ASHA ARORA, J. 1. Babul Chandra Dey, an employee of Jadavpur University, Kolkata, died in harness on 22nd May, 2006 pursuant to which his married daughter Jolly Dey Bose applied before the concerned authority for compassionate appointment on 27th December, 2006 which was not considered. Thereafter she filed a writ petition in this Court being W.P. No. 14588 (W) of 2012. At this juncture it is pertinent to refer to a copy of the letter dated 11th July, 2012 of the Registrar of Jadavpur University annexed to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition the relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder: “Your prayer for appointment on compassionate ground due to death of your father Babul Chandra Dey cannot be considered as there is no provision in the norms of the university for appointment of married daughter on compassionate ground.” 2. In her writ petition before the learned Single Judge the petitioner contended that she was given in marriage to one Joydeep Bose on 30th June, 2005 but owing to physical and mental torture upon her by her husband and other family members she was driven out from her matrimonial home in December, 2005. Since then she has been residing in her father’s house as one of his dependents. The petitioner and her mother have been left in penury due to death of her father. She is therefore in dire need of compassionate appointment to tide over the sudden financial crisis. The petitioner further averred in her application that refusal to consider a married daughter for compassionate appointment is discriminatory and violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. 3. Placing credence on the petitioner’s story of being a deserted wife who was financially dependent on her father during his lifetime, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 5th August, 2013 in W.P. No. 14588 (W) of 2012 opined as follows: “I am of the opinion that if this is the case, and the rules providing for compassionate appointment to a widowed or divorced daughter, the writ petitioner should not be deprived of an appointment on compassionate ground. The ground that she is working in the University as a temporary hand should not be counted at all. There is no comparison between a permanent job and a temporary job.” 4. The ground that she is working in the University as a temporary hand should not be counted at all. There is no comparison between a permanent job and a temporary job.” 4. On the basis of such observation the learned Judge disposed of the writ application by the impugned order the operative part of which is quoted thus: “Therefore, I dispose of the writ application by directing the Jadavpur University to grant compassionate appointment to the writ petitioner in terms of Rule 7 above, upon proper verfication of her above status, within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. In that event, the writ petitioner will give up the temporary job.” 5. Aggrieved, the respondents brought the matter in appeal. 6. Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents assailed the order of the learned Single Judge mainly on three counts. Placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Durgapur Project Limited vs. Kumari Purnima Bhui, 2013 (2) CHN (Cal) 576, Mr. Bhattacharyya’s first and foremost submission is that the Court cannot rewrite the policy of compassionate appointment. 7. Inviting our attention to the copy of complaint dated 3rd March, 2009 annexed to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner before this Court, Mr. Bhattacharyya’s next submission is that from the petitioner’s own admission it is clear that she is not in dire need of compassionate appointment. This apart, the copy of the said complaint reveals that she is residing with her husband and hence, is not a deserted wife. 8. Referring to the operative part of the impugned order, the third contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that instead of directing the authorities to consider granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner the learned Judge erred by giving mandatory direction for such appointment. 9. 8. Referring to the operative part of the impugned order, the third contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that instead of directing the authorities to consider granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner the learned Judge erred by giving mandatory direction for such appointment. 9. A copy of the Text of Modus Operandi for recruitment of non-teaching staff of Jadavpur University produced before us on behalf of the appellants shows that under the heading Appointment on Compassionate Ground in item No. 7 reads thus: “In the event of death of a member of staff (teaching/officer/non-teaching non-officer) while in service, his/her direct dependent (spouse/son/unmarried daughter or widowed or divorced and in that order) may be appointed in a base post not above the rank of Junior Assistant/Typist according to his/her academic and professional qualification by the E.C entirely on compassionate ground against a clear vacancy and no supernumerary post to be created for the purpose.” 10. It is evident that to come within the purview of the prescribed scheme for such appointment a claimant must be a direct dependent of the deceased employee that is, spouse, son or unmarried daughter or a widowed or divorced daughter. In our case in hand petitioner is admittedly the married daughter of the employee who died in harness. It is her claim that being deserted by her husband she has been residing in her father’s house as his dependent since December, 2005 so she is entitled to compassionate appointment. According to the scheme for such an appointment, besides an unmarried daughter only a widowed or divorced daughter is eligible for consideration. There is no provision therein for extending such concession to a daughter who has been deserted by her husband. 11. In the case of State Bank of India and Another vs. Rajkumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed 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. 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 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. Such an appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 12. In the case of State of Chhatisgarh and Others vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, (2009) 13 SCC 600 the Apex Court held that appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the general rule that is provided only in terms of the scheme. 13. In our case in hand the learned Single Judge seems to have proceeded in the matter on sympathetic consideration. The principle laid down in the State of Haryana and Another vs. Ankur Gupta, (2003) 7 SCC 704 is that the Court cannot give compassionate appointment de hors the statutory policy. Sympathetic consideration can be adopted only within the realm of policy but not outside it. It is not for the Court to rewrite such policy and to dictate to the employer as to whom they should provide employment in the form of concession. In our present case the scheme for such compassionate appointment specifically excludes married daughter from consideration by unequivocally and categorically referring to ‘unmarried daughter’ or ‘widowed’ or ‘divorced’ who can claim such an appointment. 14. Mrs. Pampa Dey the learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision of the Single Bench of this Court in Maino Mejhian vs. Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others, (2015) 1 CAL LT 160 (HC) in support of her submission that the scheme under which an unmarried daughter or a widowed or divorced daughter is eligible for being considered for such an appointment offends Article 15 of the Constitution of India as it excludes from its consideration a married daughter. 15. The judgment of the Single Bench of this Court relied upon by the petitioner does not hold good in the light of the above referred decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the matter. 15. The judgment of the Single Bench of this Court relied upon by the petitioner does not hold good in the light of the above referred decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the matter. Apart from this, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in several decisions on this point, a Division Bench of this Court in Durgapur Project Limited vs. Kumari Purnima Bhui, 2013 (2) CHN 576 held that when the policy excludes the married daughter obviously it is not for the Court to substitute the policy. It has been observed that the provision which has been made by way of concession, 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. In paragraph 13 of the judgment the Court held as follows: “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.” 16. On facts, the petitioner could not substantiate her contention that she has been deserted by her husband and as such, she was constrained to take shelter in her father’s house where she has been residing as his dependent since December, 2005. The petitioner also alleged that she was physically and mentally tortured by her husband but curiously enough, no iota of document could be produced to show that she took any legal action against him at least by making a complaint at the local police station. In her writ petition before the learned Single Judge the petitioner alleged that she was driven out from her matrimonial home in December, 2005 whereas in the copy of complaint dated 3.3.2009 annexed to her supplementary affidavit dated 8.5.2015 she has stated that her husband is residing with her in a rented house and that she works in Jadavpur University for Rs. 5000/- per month. It is palpable that with a view to secure an appointment on compassionate ground the petitioner concocted a false story. Annexure ‘R1’ to the supplementary affidavit dated 8.5.2014 filed by the petitioner falsifies her case as made out in the writ petition. Her claim is wholly devoid of merit. 5000/- per month. It is palpable that with a view to secure an appointment on compassionate ground the petitioner concocted a false story. Annexure ‘R1’ to the supplementary affidavit dated 8.5.2014 filed by the petitioner falsifies her case as made out in the writ petition. Her claim is wholly devoid of merit. 17. For the reasons discussed we are of the firm view that the impugned order dated 5.8.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P No. 14588 (W) of 2012 is not sustainable and is therefore quashed and set aside. 18. The appeal is accordingly allowed without any order as to costs. 19. Consequently, the connected application being CAN No. 2162 of 2014 has become infructuous and is thus disposed of. 20. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment if applied for shall be given to the parties subject to compliance of requisite formalities.