JUDGMENT : The 1st petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman drawing disability pension. The 2nd petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd petitioner has been working as a Lab Assistant in an Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) polyclinic functioning at Kalpetta for the last four years. The Station Commander has issued Ext.P7 circular informing that an interview would be conducted during December, 2017/January, 2018 for selection of candidates for contractual employment at ECHS polyclinics as mentioned therein. The posts notified for selection include that of Lab Assistant in Kalpetta also. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, apprehending that 2nd petitioner would be replaced on the basis of this interview. 2. Pointing out Ext. P1 pension payment order and P2 order of the Armed Force Tribunal, petitioners claim that being a dependent of a disabled Ex-Serviceman, the 2nd petitioner is entitled to be absorbed against the vacancy in which she is continuing, without subjecting her to interview. According to the petitioners, 70% vacancies of Lab Assistants in the ECHS are reserved for Ex-Servicemen. Only in their absence, these vacancies under the 70% quota can be filled up from among civilians. The petitioners submit that the present selection is being made in the absence of sufficient number of Ex-Servicemen under the 70% category. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on Ex-Servicemen (Re employment in Central Services and Posts) Rules 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), argued that Ex-Servicemen includes dependents of disabled Ex-Servicemen also and the 2nd petitioner being the wife of a disabled Ex-Serviceman, is entitled to priority and hence entitled to be absorbed in the 70% category and therefore she is liable to be given regular appointment in the 70% quota. 4. At the same time, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India points out that the appointments to the post in ECHS is governed by a separate scheme formulated on 22nd September,2003 and it is not governed by the rules relied on by the petitioners; there is no provision under the scheme which provides for any preference to the dependents of Ex-Servicemen and that even as per the rules the wife of an Ex-serviceman is not entitled to be appointed in the quota of Ex-servicemen, as wife is not mentioned among the members of the family who are given priority under the rules. The scheme for appointment in ECHS polyclinics which is a separate scheme. provides for appointment of civilians only, in the absence of Ex-Servicemen. Therefore, the respondents have decided to conduct an interview for selection to such posts, where there is deficiency of Ex-Servicemen for appointment as Lab Assistant against 70% quota. 5. Having considered the contentions on both sides it is seen that the 1st petitioner is an ex-serviceman who was invalidated out from Army on account of disability incurred while in service. Under the Rules governing the re-settlement of Ex-Servicemen certain priorities and relaxations are provided for the dependents of disabled Ex-Servicemen also under Rule 9 thereof. It provides for priority upto two members each of the families of defence service personnel killed in service or severely disabled. This priority is applicable to the dependents of ex-servicemen disabled in peace time also. Though the rules relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are with respect to appointment to group C and D posts, as contended by the learned ASGI, the object behind the ECHS as well as the rules can only be the rehabilitation of Ex-servicemen. Though the rules do not mention wife as one eligible for priority, while widow, son, daughter, etc are mentioned, priority is given to a member of the family. It cannot be said that wife is not a member of the family of ex-serviceman. Priority mentioned in the rules is to “two members each of the family of disabled ex-serviceman”. That benefit cannot be denied to the wife of a disabled ex-serviceman on the ground that there is no specific mention of 'wife' along with son, daughter, etc. When admittedly 70% of the posts are reserved for Ex-Servicemen and the scheme is formulated for the benefit of the Ex-Servicemen, the respondents are liable to consider the cases in accordance with the purpose and intent of the scheme. The priorities provided in the rules can in no way be found as contrary to the purpose and intent of the scheme, viz rehabilitation of Ex-servicemen. The 1st petitioner was invalidated out from Army on account of disability incurred while in service as can be seen from Ext.P1 and P2 orders. The priorities provided in the rules can in no way be found as contrary to the purpose and intent of the scheme, viz rehabilitation of Ex-servicemen. The 1st petitioner was invalidated out from Army on account of disability incurred while in service as can be seen from Ext.P1 and P2 orders. Therefore he is a disabled Ex-serviceman and his wife who is a member of the family of a disabled ex-serviceman should be entitled to be given some preference in the selection notified in Ext P7, even if the scheme does not provide for the same. 6. In the above circumstances, even-though the contention of the petitioners that 2nd petitioner need not appear for interview cannot be accepted, the 2nd petitioner being the wife/member of the family of a disabled ex-serviceman is entitled to be considered with due weight-age and priority in the process of selection. At any rate she is entitled to be preferred to a civilian who is not a dependent or a member of the family of an Ex-serviceman. Therefore there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner in the interview scheduled for selection of Lab Assistants in Kalpetta, with due priority in her capacity as a member of the family of a disabled Ex-serviceman. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.