ORDER : Heard. 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge legality and validity of the order dated 2.6.2017 by which the petitioner's appointment on compassionate basis has been cancelled on the basis of a complaint made by respondent No.5, entertained by the District Education Officer. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on the basis of 'no objection' given by respondent No.5 in the past and, therefore, termination of services of the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.5 was not justified. The other ground of challenge is that the petitioner, in any case, ought to be afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. 3. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the policy of compassionate appointment which was in force at the time of death of employee was one which was promulgated on 14th June 2013. Clause 5 of the said policy deals with eligible members of family of the deceased employee where the deceased Govt. servant happens to be a married person. Clause 6 thereof deals with those cases where the deceased employee was unmarried or a widower without any son and daughter. In the present case, the deceased employee left behind his widow. Therefore, in his case, clause 5 of the policy dated 14th June 2013 will apply, which reads as under:- ^^5- vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq ik= mEehnokj & fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifjokj ds fuEufyf[kr o;Ld lnL;ksa esa ls fdlh ,d lnL; dks uhps nf'kZr dzekuqlkj vFkkZr~ ¼d½ ds vLohdkj djus ij ;k ik= u gksus ij ¼[k½ dks ,oa mlds i'pkr~ blh vuqdze esa vkxs ¼x½ ¼?k½ ,oa ¼M-½ dh vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq dze'k% fopkj fd;k tk;sxk%& ¼d½ fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod dh fo/kok@fo/kqjA ¼[k½ iq=@nRrd iq=A ¼x½ iq=h@nRrd iq=hA ¼?k½ vkfJr fo/kok iq=h@vkfJr nRrd fo/kok iq=hA ¼M-½ vkfJr rykd'kqnk iq=h@vkfJr rykd'kqnk nRrd iq=hA ¼p½ iq=o/kqA** 4. Except the above category of family members, no other class of relative is included in the list of eligible family members who could be granted compassionate appointment. It was not permissible for the authority to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner, the sister-in-law of the deceased, even upon no objection of the widow of the deceased because there is no such provision in the relevant policy. 5. Reliance placed in clause 6 of the policy is misconceived in law. It was not permissible for the authority to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner, the sister-in-law of the deceased, even upon no objection of the widow of the deceased because there is no such provision in the relevant policy. 5. Reliance placed in clause 6 of the policy is misconceived in law. Clause 6 is applicable only in case of those employees who are unmarried and die while in service. This is clear from the said provision which is reproduced herein-below:- ^^6- vfookfgr 'kkldh; lsod dk fu/ku gksus ij vuqdEik fu;qfDr & ,sls 'kkldh; lsod dh eqR;q gksus ij] tks fd vfookfgr gS ¼vFkok fo/kqj gS vkSj mlds dksbZ iq=@iq=h ugha gS½ rks ,sls fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds ¼ekrk@firk dh vuq'kalk½ ij ¼HkkbZ@cgu½ dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk gksxhA** 6. The conclusion is forgone and does not leave any scope for taking any other possible view. Therefore, even if an opportunity of hearing was not afforded, only on this ground, I am not inclined to grant relief because the principles of natural justice are not unruly horse. In appropriate case, useless formality theory as propounded by Supreme Court in the case of Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan (2000) 7 SCC 529 would become applicable. This being one of those exceptional cases, only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter when apparently under the relevant policy, the petitioner was not entitled to be granted compassionate appointment. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed.