JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents No. 17 and Mr. K. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8 represented by her paternal aunt, namely, Smt. Sabita Dhar. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this Court to direct the respondents No. 17 to waive the submission of fresh No Objection Certificate from the minor namely Miss. Muskan Sutradhar, the respondent No. 8 for purpose of providing the petitioner compassionate appointment under Dieinharness scheme owing to death of her husband, namely Pallab Kumar Sutradhar. 3. Pallab Kumar Sutradhar died on 17.05.2015 while working as the Assistant Teacher, lastly posted at Khas Chowmuhani Class-XII School, Sonamura, Sepahijala District. There is no dispute that except the petitioner and the petitioner’s son, namely, Naren Sutradhar (still minor) and Miss. Muskan Sutradhar, the respondent No. 8., there is none in the ‘family’ within meaning as provided by the Dieinharness scheme of the deceased employee. 4. The respondent No. 8 was born on 26.06.2004 and thus, she is not entitled to get any Government employment or any appointment under Dieinharness scheme for sudden death of said Pallab Kumar Sutradhar. The respondent No. 8 is born in the wedlock of Pallab Kumar Sutradhar and Anjana Sutradhar. Anjana Sutradhar died on 26.01.2005 and thereafter, Pallab Kumar Sutradhar married the petitioner. 5. It is not disputed that the petitioner is otherwise eligible for appointment under the Dieinharness scheme for death of Pallab Kumar Sutradhar. But by the communication under No. F.1(12)SE/E/(NG)/2015/(68)196 dated 23.04.2016, the petitioner has been asked by the District Inspector of Schools for the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura to submit a fresh No Objection Certificate from the minor, Miss Muskan Sutradhar, the respondent No. 8. 6. According to the petitioner such No Objection Certificate is not required from a minor as the minor has no eligibility to get the compassionate appointment. But Mr. K. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8 has submitted that if the petitioner is appointed, the respondent No. 8 may not be properly maintained by the petitioner. To repel such apprehension, Mr. But Mr. K. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8 has submitted that if the petitioner is appointed, the respondent No. 8 may not be properly maintained by the petitioner. To repel such apprehension, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed an undertaking to the Director of School Education, which is affirmed on oath stating that she shall maintain the respondent No. 8 properly with the other family members who are the dependent survivors left by the deceased Government servant. The petitioner has categorically mentioned the name of the respondent No. 8 in the said undertaking and stated that if there emerged any negligence in maintenance of those dependent survivors of the deceased government employee, her appointment at any point of time may be terminated. 7. Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents No. 17 has stated that all the compassionate appointments made under the Dieinharness scheme is subject to full maintenance of the dependent of the deceased employee and if there found any breach of that obligation, the government reserves the right to recall the said employment by termination or adopt by other appropriate steps. 8. From the rival submissions what has appeared before this Court is that the demand for submitting the fresh No Objection Certificate is absolutely unreasonable, particularly when the respondent No. 8 does not have the eligibility to get the appointment or to claim any stake over such appointment under the Dieinharness scheme. Hence, the respondents are directed to process the appointment of the petitioner under the Dieinharness scheme in a post commensurate to her qualification and other skills subject to condition that if the petitioner neglects the full maintenance of the respondent No. 8, her appointment may invite suitable action including termination. 9. In the circumstances, it is further directed that the entire process shall be taken to its logical end by 31.03.2017. With the above observations and direction, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be furnished to Mr. T. D. Maunder, learned G.A. for onwards transmission.