ORDER : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 9th June, 2015, whereby services of the petitioner were terminated from the post of LDC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner Late Shri Brij Mohan Sharma had been working on the post of Junior Engineer in the service of respondent-Department and died on 9th December, 2013, while in service. 3. The petitioner being dependent on her father, submitted her application for compassionate appointment on the post of L.D.C. The petitioner was offered appointment on the post of L.D.C. vide order dated 22nd May, 2014. The petitioner got married on 14th February, 2014 and she also gave birth to a child while working, and when she applied for maternity leave, she was served with the impugned order dated 9th June, 2015. 4. The reasons assigned in the impugned order was that the petitioner got married on 14th February, 2014 and she was interviewed by the Selection Committee on 11th March, 2014. It was stated that mother of the petitioner had filed an affidavit dated 24th January, 2014 and as such, when petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee, she did not disclose the fact of getting married. 5. It was stated in the impugned order that petitioner got employment by concealment of fact, relating to her marriage and as such, the impugned order was passed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the requirement of Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996, since the petitioner was unmarried at the time of death of her father, as such she was entitled to be appointed and even if, she got married before the date of interview, she cannot be rendered ineligible and her services could not have been terminated. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment reported in 2017 (1) WLC (Raj.) UC 436 (Smt. Sonu Devi v. State of Rajasthan), where the Co-ordinate Bench has interpreted Rule 5 & has held that a person who applies as an unmarried daughter would be entitled to be appointed as per the Rules of 1996 and the fact of marriage during process of selection, cannot come in way of appointment. The Court has further held that the eligibility of a dependent and qualification would be possessed on the date, when such dependent moves an application. 8. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner was guilty of not disclosing the complete facts at the time of seeking appointment, when she appeared in the interview before the Selection Committee. 9. Mr. Jai Lodha Adv., submits that the Department followed proper procedure by giving show cause notice and after reply being received. He submits that by giving appointment to the petitioner, the very purpose of giving compassionate appointment will be frustrated. The definition of Dependent under Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1996 means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, [adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter] legally adopted by the deceased Government Servant during his/her life time and who were wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death. 10. In the instant case at the time of death of the deceased Government Servant, petitioner was unmarried & dependent on her father. The definition of the "Dependent" under Rule 2 (c) of the Rules, 1996 squarely covers the case of the petitioner and when she had applied for seeking compassionate appointment on 11th May, 2013, she was not a married daughter. 11. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 further requires that the person who is to be given appointment should be eligible and dependent of deceased Govt. Servant at the time of death of the Government Servant. Rules 5 also take into account the situation, which obtains at the time of death of the Government Servant. 12. This Court in the case of Smt. Sonu Devi v. State of Rajasthan (Supra) has entertained the similar issue and has held that merely by reason of a person getting married, claim of such unmarried daughter at the time of death of her father, will not be defeated. The relevant para 10 & 11 are quoted as herein above:- 10. This Court finds merit in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the eligibility of the dependants and their qualifications would be assessed on the day when they moved an application. The relevant para 10 & 11 are quoted as herein above:- 10. This Court finds merit in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the eligibility of the dependants and their qualifications would be assessed on the day when they moved an application. The purpose of the Rules of 1996 is to provide assistance to the family in harness immediately and on account of the delay in giving appointment for years together, the dependants cannot be deprived of their rightful claim. 11. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner who had applied as an unmarried daughter would be entitled to be appointed under the Rules 1996. If the submission of the counsel for the respondent is to be accepted then it would be a case where a (6 of 6) [CW-9022/2014] dependant unmarried daughter even after appointment may not be allowed to get married, as the situation of a woman and her status may change, she cannot be deprived of her rightful claim under the Rules of 1996. The judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Seema (supra) is distinguishable as the same only relates to the case where a claimant was a married daughter at the time of death of the deceased Government Servant and she challenged Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1996. The Court has not accepted the said petition and has refused to even examined the validity of the Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1996. The same would, therefore, not applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank (Supra) gives a guideline for finding as to what should be the date. This Court respectfully agrees to the view and taking into consideration all the aspects, allow the writ petition. 13. In the opinion of the Court, the impugned order dated 9th June, 2015 has been passed on a wrong premise and the date of interview which has been taken into account for considering the eligibility of the petitioner, is not relevant criteria for terminating her services. The interpretation of Rules by the respondents holding that petitioner was a married daughter at the time of appointment, is also in not consonance with the Rules of 1996. 14. The interpretation of Rules by the respondents holding that petitioner was a married daughter at the time of appointment, is also in not consonance with the Rules of 1996. 14. The Court finds that impugned order is not as per law and as such the present petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 9th June, 2015 (Annex-6) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service. However, petitioner will not be entitled for back wages during the intervening period. The order may be carried out within a period of two months from the date of receiving of the certified copy of this order.