JUDGMENT : SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court claiming compassionate appointment on account of death of her father, who was holding the post of Senior Teacher in the Education Department and expired while in service on 18.03.2011. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that she immediately moved an application for seeking compassionate appointment and all other family members namely brother and sisters submitted an affidavit to give their no objection for allowing appointment of the petitioner. The application was moved by her on 08.02.2013. While the process of appointment was undergoing, the petitioner got married on 29.11.2013 and affidavit to this effect was also filed by her. The respondents, however, denied the appointment to the petitioner on the ground that she has now got married and a married girl/daughter is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 1996'). The order dated 03.06.2014 was passed by the District Education Officer, (Middle) Sri Ganganagar. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rules of 1996 provide the appointment under Rule 5, which is reproduced as under:- 5. Appointment subject to certain conditions:- (1) When a Government Servant dies while in service one of his/her dependants may be considered for appointment in Government Service subject to the condition that employment under these rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or at least one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter of the deceased Government Servant is already employed on regular basis under the Central/any State Government or Statutory Board, Organisation/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/any State Government at the time of death of the Government Servant. Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself) (2) Appointment under these rules shall be given on the condition that the person appointed on compassionate ground shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependant on the deceased Government Servant and on furnishing undertaking in writing that he/she maintain properly the other family members who were dependant on the deceased Government servant. If subsequently, at any time, it is proved that such dependant family members are being neglected or are not being maintained properly by him, the appointment may be terminated by the Appointing Authority, after providing an opportunity to the compassionate appointee by way of issue of show cause notice asking him to explain why his services should not be terminated.) 4. From above, it is apparent that the position of the dependants would be seen at the time of death of the Government Servant and not later on. In support of his submissions, he also relied upon judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar 2015 (7) SCC 412 . Para 17 is reproduced as under:- "17. Applying these principles to the case in hand, as discussed earlier, respondent's father died on 10.10.1998 while he was serving as a clerk in the appellant-bank and the respondent applied timely for compassionate appointment as per the scheme 'Dying in Harness Scheme' dated 8.05.1993 which was in force at that time. The appellant-bank rejected the respondent's claim on 30.06.1999 recording that there are no indigent circumstances for providing employment to the respondent. Again on 7.11.2001, the appellant-bank sought for particulars in connection with the issue of respondent's employment. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, the cause of action to be considered for compassionate appointment arose when the Circular No.154/1993 dated 8.05.1993 was in force. Thus, as per the judgment referred in Jaspal Kaur's case, the claim cannot be decided as per 2005 Scheme providing for ex-gratia payment. The Circular dated 14.2.2005 being an administrative or executive order cannot have retrospective effect so as to take away the right accrued to the respondent as per circular of 1993." 5. It is submitted that after the petitioner submitted her application, it was the duty of the respondents to have give her appointment immediately as i.e. the very purpose of the Rules of 1996. However, the respondents have kept the matter pending and one cannot presume that till appointment order is not issued, an unmarried woman should not get married. The same also goes against the very public policy. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Rules do not provide for appointment to a married daughter. However, the respondents have kept the matter pending and one cannot presume that till appointment order is not issued, an unmarried woman should not get married. The same also goes against the very public policy. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Rules do not provide for appointment to a married daughter. It is on the day when the appointment orders are issued that the status of the dependant would be examined. That apart, he also relies upon a Division Bench judgment passed by this Court in case of Seema v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5062/2016 decided on 06.07.2016 wherein compassionate appointment to a married daughter was denied by the Court. 7. Having heard both the learned counsels for the parties and after having looked into the relevant provisions, this Court finds that while there is an embargo for appointment of a married daughter under the Rules of 1996 and a challenge to that Rule was made before this Court which has been reported in the case of Seema (Supra). 8. The question still remains that whether a unmarried daughter who subsequently gets married during the intervening period when the appointment has not been actually given to her can be treated as having become ineligible. 9. The question of eligibility of an individual has been examined time and again by this Court as well as by the Apex Court relating to the day on which, the same is required to be assessed. In Ashok Kumar's case, the Supreme Court has held that the eligibility has to be seen on the day when the last date of application in any selections which are to be conducted by the authorities. Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of RPSC v. Abhijeet Singh Yadav 2011 WLC (UC) 295 as well as by the Supreme Court in the case of Alka Ojha v. RPSC 2011 (9) SCC 438 . However, so far as compassionate appointment is concerned, there is no advertisement required to be issued and, therefore, the date of eligibility will have to be assessed, as to what will be treated as the date for assessment for the same. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 clearly provides that the position shall be seen on the day when the Government Servant has expired. 10. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 clearly provides that the position shall be seen on the day when the Government Servant has expired. 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 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 examine the validity of the Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1996. The same would, therefore, not apply 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, allows the writ petition. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 03.06.2013 passed by is quashed and set-aside. The petitioner is directed to be considered for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996 as per her application moved on 08.02.2013 with all consequential benefits. The said exercise may be conducted within a period of three months from today, failing which; the petitioner shall be free to initiate contempt proceedings without any further notice. The petitioner is directed to be considered for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996 as per her application moved on 08.02.2013 with all consequential benefits. The said exercise may be conducted within a period of three months from today, failing which; the petitioner shall be free to initiate contempt proceedings without any further notice. Writ petition allowed - Order refusing appointment quashed - Director given to consider case of appointment.