JUDGMENT : 1. The question urged by the State in this case that the respondent/writ petitioner, who successfully approached the Court for a direction for compassionate appointment, is erroneous. 2. The writ petitioner's father late Shri Surendra Kumar Sharma died whilst in employment. Since the petitioner was married but marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce, the State contended that she was not entitled for compassionate appointment as she could not be treated as a dependent. According to the State, the petitioner could not be described as an "unmarried daughter". 3. The learned Single Judge rejected the State's contention relying upon an earlier decision of this Court in Indira Bishnoi vs. the State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14502/2015, decided on 03.08.2016] which was confirmed in appeal [State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Indira Bishnoi, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 166/2017, decided on 24.03.2017]. The learned Single Judge accordingly allowed the writ petition and quashed the order rejecting the application. The State was also directed to consider the writ petitioner's case for grant of compassionate appointment and take consequential action within one month. 4. It is contended on behalf of the State that the interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous as there is a distinction between an "unmarried daughter" and "divorcee". It is contended that rule making authority was conscious about the marital status because the two expressions, i.e. "unmarried" and "widow" find specific mention in the Rule (Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of the Dependents of the Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996). It was also sought to be argued that State of Rajasthan has consciously provided sub-reservation of 20% for divorcee and widowed woman. In these circumstances, in absence of the expression "divorcee", the meaning, which ought to be attributed for the expression "unmarried", ought to be one who has never been married. 5. The decision in Indira Bishnoi (supra) pertinently states as follows: "From perusal of the circular issued by Government of Rajasthan dated 16.02.2005 bearing Nos. P.8(K)(YA) (113) D.L.B./01/1581, it is apparent that the government has treated a deserted daughter equivalent to an unmarried daughter. If a deserted daughter can be treated as unmarried daughter, then there is no reason to treat a divorced daughter on a different pedestal. P.8(K)(YA) (113) D.L.B./01/1581, it is apparent that the government has treated a deserted daughter equivalent to an unmarried daughter. If a deserted daughter can be treated as unmarried daughter, then there is no reason to treat a divorced daughter on a different pedestal. In view of it, in our considered opinion, no wrong has been committed by learned Single Bench by treating the respondent-petitioner a dependent of deceased government servant and by directing the appellant to offer appointment to her. The appeal, as such, is having no merit. Hence, dismissed." 6. During the hearing it was pointed out that a similar issue arose in the Allahabad and Bombay High Courts. In the Allahabad High Court, a Division Bench, in State of U.P. vs. Noopur Srivastava [Special Appeal Defective No. 673/2018, decided on 03.01.2019], examined the effect of an identical Rule 2(c) which defined "family" as inclusive of unmarried daughters, unmarried adopted daughters, widowed daughters and widowed daughters in law. The Division Bench rejected the State's appeal, which had identically to the present case argued that the expression "unmarried" does not comprehend the "divorced daughters". The Division Bench in Noopur Srivastava (supra) observed as follows: "It is relevant to take note of the fact that the State is required to endeavour for promoting welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may, a social order in which justice, social, economic and political should prevail. The State is required to make effective provisions for securing the right to work and to public assistance in case of unemployment, old age, sickness, disablement and any other cause of undesired want for the welfare of the Citizens/Govt. Employees and considering the aforesaid aspect, several schemes were framed and Act and Rules were enacted (Welfare Legislation and Subordinate Legislation) out of which most are still operative. As a part of promotion of the welfare of those recruited by the State to various services established by it, the necessity to provide employment opportunities to the members of the family of the deceased government servants arose and the State being a social welfare State and a model employer enacted beneficial legislation i.e. Rules of 1974, whereby providing opportunity of employment to one of the dependants of the deceased employee. Needless to say that the Rules for compassionate appointment were framed to meet out the sudden financial crisis of the dependants/family of the deceased employee. Needless to say that the Rules for compassionate appointment were framed to meet out the sudden financial crisis of the dependants/family of the deceased employee. Rules for compassionate appointment are an exception to the general rule of employment/appointment. The general rule of employment/appointment in public service, as a rule, is that the appointment can be made strictly on merit and any other mode will be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and give open space to arbitrariness and nepotism in providing the appointment. The Rules of 1974 is a beneficial legislation, which has been enacted by the State Govt. as a Social Welfare measure, and being so it has to be interpreted in context or background for or under which the Rules of 1974 were framed/enacted and were enforced. The duty of the Court in interpreting or construing a provision is to read the section and understand its meaning in the context. Interpretation of a provision or Statute is not a mere formality/semantic but an attempt to find out the meaning/intention of the legislation from the words used, understand the context and the purpose of the expression used and then to construe the expression sensibly. In the instant case expression "Unmarried" used in the Rule 2(c) of Rules of 1974, a beneficial legislation, requires consideration. Normal and common meaning of expression "Unmarried" is "not married" or "Single". In the Wharton's Law Lexicon 15th Edition the expression "Unmarried" has been defined as under:- "Unmarried, is a term of flexible meaning; prima facie it means 'never having been married', but the context may show that it means 'not having a husband or wife', Re Sergeant, (1884) 26 Ch D 575; Blundell v. De Falbe, (1888) 57 UCh 576. Means not re-married, AIR 1963 Cal 428 (429). (Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, s. 25) Not married; single, Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edn. Unmarried, means not married. Unmarried daughters under the Hindu law have got better claims on the 'stridhana' of the mother, Rajban v. Rahim Bux, (1969) ILR 1 All 633 : (1969) All LJ 16 : (1969) All WR (HC) 78." As per Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, "unmarried" means 'not now or previously married' or 'being divorced or widowed'. Unmarried, means not married. Unmarried daughters under the Hindu law have got better claims on the 'stridhana' of the mother, Rajban v. Rahim Bux, (1969) ILR 1 All 633 : (1969) All LJ 16 : (1969) All WR (HC) 78." As per Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, "unmarried" means 'not now or previously married' or 'being divorced or widowed'. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx In context of the present case it is needless to observe that a widow remains to be part of her husband's family even after the death of such husband, whereas upon the marriage being dissolved, the divorcee daughter does not continue to be a part of the family of her divorced husband and would continue to remain single unless she remarries. Further, under Rule 2(c) of Rules of 1974 there is no express exclusion that a "divorced daughter" is not entitled to appointment under the Rules nor the expression "Unmarried" daughter has been clarified by putting the words to the effect that it means a "daughter never married" or "daughter not married" and being so the secondary meaning of term "Unmarried" cannot be ignored and is liable to be taken into account in the given circumstances in context of beneficial legislation i.e. Rules of 1974. On the basis of aforesaid discussion in the context of Rules of 1974, we hold that the expression "divorced daughter" is included/implicit in the expression "Unmarried daughter". Accordingly we hold that a "divorced daughter" is entitled to compassionate appointment if she was dependant, on the date of death of her father/mother (the employee) and the marriage was dissolved legally either prior to or after the date of death of bread earner of the family and she remains "not married" at the time of appointment." 7. In Radhabai vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2012 (6) Mh.L.J. 956 , the Bombay High Court has also adopted a similar view by observing as follows: "4. The petitioner though had been married to one Narayan Pandurang Channe, the matrimonial relationship did not last long and from last about 15-16 years, she had been staying with her parents and dependent on them. Ultimately, the sour marital relationship has resulted into a decree of divorce passed by the Civil Court in H.M.P. No. 54 of 2010. 5. The father had been the only earning source for his wife and the petitioner-married daughter returned to parents. Ultimately, the sour marital relationship has resulted into a decree of divorce passed by the Civil Court in H.M.P. No. 54 of 2010. 5. The father had been the only earning source for his wife and the petitioner-married daughter returned to parents. With death of the father, the family had been exposed to all sorts of perils and had no source of livelihood worth the name. The petitioner and her mother, as such, had been in dire need of gainful employment. 6. Policy and Scheme of appointment on compassion, had kindled their hopes of a source for their livelihood and petitioner had, accordingly, on 14.3.2011 applied to Respondent No. 2 for appointment due to death of her father. However, as Respondent No. 2 under the communication dated 18.4.2011 had declined to accede to the request of the petitioner for reason that her case is not covered under clause 3(a) of Govt. Resolution dated 26.10.1994 for appointments on compassionate ground, the petitioner has impugned the said communication in this petition. It would also be worthwhile to note that, but for the limits as appreciated under the impugned communication, there appears to be no objection of the Respondents to appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground. 7. A co-ordinate bench of this court had come across a similar situation in Writ Petition No. 1284 of 2011 decided on 1.8.2011, where under a married daughter had been declined appointment on compassionate ground. The decision of the said bench has been reported in 2011 (5) ALL MR 346 (Aparna Narendra Zambre v. Assistant Engineer and others). In the said judgment, there is reference to the decision of a Division Bench of Madras High Court reported in (2006) 2 LW 325 (U. Arulmozhi vs. The Director of School Education) as well as decision of learned Single Judge of this High Court in Writ Petition No. 6056 of 2010 (The State of Maharashtra v. Medha Prashant Parkhe). The Madras High Court had held that exclusion of married daughter from consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is unsustainable. The co-ordinate Bench and learned Single Judge have referred to various authorities of High Courts and had also held that the orders impugned were unsustainable." 8. The Madras High Court had held that exclusion of married daughter from consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is unsustainable. The co-ordinate Bench and learned Single Judge have referred to various authorities of High Courts and had also held that the orders impugned were unsustainable." 8. This Court is of the view that having regard to the reasoning adopted by the Allahabad High Court that the term "unmarried daughter" is synonymous to a "single daughter", the previous marital status or lack of it, cannot be determinative to the writ petitioner's claim. In other words, the mere circumstance that the applicant has previously been married, cannot be a relevant ground for the State to reject the application for compassionate appointment if on the date of such application, the claimant was unmarried as in the present case. Unmarried means one who is not married: not, as the State contends, one who was never unmarried. Resultantly if on the date of claim for compassionate appointment, the daughter not married, she could fulfill the eligibility criteria. Any other interpretation would be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. Following the decisions in Noopur Srivastava (supra) and Indira Bishnoi (supra), therefore, this Court holds that there is no merit in the appeal. 10. The appeal is dismissed in the above terms.