JUDGMENT : S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. By means of filing this writ petition, petitioner Smti. Manipriya Deb Barma has challenged the order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tribunal’) in OA No. 040/00045 of 2016 whereby the tribunal held that Ms. Rinku Deb Barma (respondent No.4), daughter of late Nagendra Deb Barma through his first wife Smt. Swapna Deb Barma be given compassionate appointment by the official respondents on account of the death of her father Nagendra Deb Barma in harness and directed the said respondents to carry out the order within a period of three months. 2. The case of the petitioner which has been projected in her writ petition is as under: Her husband Nagendra Deb Barma was a peon in the office of the Deputy Engineer, NF Railway at Agartala who died in harness on 17.05.2014 (death certificate is Annexure-3 to the writ petition) survived by his petitioner wife and only daughter Payel Deb Barma. During his lifetime, said Nagendra Deb Barma executed a Will on 09.10.2012 (Annexure-5) which was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar at Agartala on the same day. By the said Will, Nagendra Deb Barma (now deceased) declared that in the event of his death, his wife Smt. Manipriya Deb Barma (petitioner) would be given compassionate appointment and she would also be entitled to family pension and all other pensionary benefits. (i) Pursuant to the said Will of her late husband, petitioner Manipriya Deb Barma claimed compassionate appointment and pensionary benefits including family pension after the death of her husband by making a communication dated 12.06.2014 to official respondents (Annexure-6). Since there was no response from the official respondents, she reiterated her claim for compassionate appointment and pensionary benefits by a subsequent communication dated 30.01.2015 (Annexure-7). (ii) The official respondents replied to her communications by their letter dated 20.02.2015 (Annexure-8) informing the petitioner that Smt. Swapna Deb Barma already claimed compassionate appointment and pensionary benefits after the death of Nagendra Deb Barma claiming to be his wife. (ii) The official respondents replied to her communications by their letter dated 20.02.2015 (Annexure-8) informing the petitioner that Smt. Swapna Deb Barma already claimed compassionate appointment and pensionary benefits after the death of Nagendra Deb Barma claiming to be his wife. The petitioner was asked by the official respondents to inform whether she filed any Probate case for probate of the Will allegedly executed by her husband and she was also asked to communicate her consent/no consent in case she was offered compassionate appointment and said Smt. Swapna Deb Barma was considered for family pension and other pensionary benefits. (iii) In her reply dated 04.06.2015 (Annexure-10), petitioner asserted that the claim of Smt. Swapna Deb Barma was false. Her husband never married Smt. Swapna Deb Barma. Therefore, she was neither entitled to compassionate appointment nor to any pensionary benefit. She reiterated her claim for compassionate appointment and release of pensionary benefits and all other outstanding dues of her husband in favour of her and their only daughter Payel Deb Barma. She also informed the official respondents that she would file a Probate case in the competent court at Agartala. (iv) Subsequent thereto, the official respondents wrote a letter dated 19.06.2015 (Annexure-12) to the petitioner informing her that her claim for compassionate appointment would be considered as per extant rules and family pension would be considered in favour of Smt. Swapna Deb Bbarma, first wife of late Nagendra Deb Barma. She was asked to communicate her comments on the said proposal. (v) Similarly, by another letter dated 19.06.2015 (Annexure-13) the official respondents informed Smt. Swapna Deb Barma that her claim for family pension would be considered as per Pension Rules. With regard to her claim for compassionate appointment, the official respondents informed her that Smt. Manipriya Deb Barma (petitioner) would be considered for compassionate appointment. The official respondents also sought for her consent/comments on the proposal. (vi) In reply, Manipriya Deb Barma, petitioner vide her letter dated 16.07.2015 (Annexure-14) accepted the proposal of her compassionate appointment and with regard to release of pensionary benefits she proposed that the same might be withheld until disposal of the Probate proceedings initiated by her. In the alternative, she proposed that pensionary benefits may be released in accordance with law subject to outcome of the Probate case. (vii) Challenging the action of the official respondents, Ms. In the alternative, she proposed that pensionary benefits may be released in accordance with law subject to outcome of the Probate case. (vii) Challenging the action of the official respondents, Ms. Rinku Debb Barma (respondent No.4) claiming to be the daughter of said Nagendra Deb Barma and Swapna Deb Barma filed a petition in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench which was registered in the Tribunal as OA No. 00045 of 2016. In her petition, she claimed that marriage between her late father Nagendra Deb Barma and mother Swapna Deb Barma was solemnized on 13.10.1977 and she and her sister Sampa Deb Barma (the eldest) and brother Mithu Deb Barma were born within their wedlock. Owing to marital discord, her father left her mother Swapna Deb Barma. Due to separation, her mother obtained maintenance allowance from the Family Court, Kamrup in Assam by an order dated 05.02.1999 in case No. FC (Crl.) 163 of 1998. In the tribunal, petitioner claimed compassionate appointment on the ground of death of her father in harness. (viii) The tribunal heard and decided the matter by an order dated 03.03.2016 holding as under: “19. In our view the responsibility to be fixed upon the concerned authority so as to ascertain legal entity of the applicant for being considered for compassionate appointment by taking note of declaration form of Service Book of the deceased employee as well as the relevant documents submitted by the claimants on the basis of the appropriate justification. Ordered accordingly. 20. In case, if it is arrived at that the applicant’s mother is the legally married first widow and not divorced till the death of deceased father, the case of the applicant shall be considered for appointment on compassionate ground as per law. Ordered accordingly. The exercise as directed shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. With the above observations and directions the O.A. is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.” (ix) Present petitioner Manipriya Deb Barma challenged the said order dated 03.03.2016 of the tribunal by filing W.P(C)(CAT) 01 of 2016 on the ground that the tribunal decided the matter without serving any notice on her. With the above observations and directions the O.A. is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.” (ix) Present petitioner Manipriya Deb Barma challenged the said order dated 03.03.2016 of the tribunal by filing W.P(C)(CAT) 01 of 2016 on the ground that the tribunal decided the matter without serving any notice on her. The said writ petition was decided by this court by an order dated 09.08.2017 (Annexure-18) observing as under: “On perusing the record, we find that no notices were served upon or received by the petitioners before disposing of the case by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. This amounts to violation of principle of natural justice, which vitiates the decision making process of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Without going into the merit of the case, we set aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2016. The case is, therefore, remanded to the learned Members, Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench for fresh decision after hearing all interested parties in accordance with law. As the case has been long pending, an attempt will be made by the Tribunal to dispose of the application within a period of 3(three) months. Both the parties will appear before the Tribunal on 05.09.2017.” (x) Pursuant to the said order of this court, the matter was heard afresh by the tribunal. Written arguments were filed by the parties. Their counsel were also heard. Finally, the tribunal decided the matter by an order dated 29.01.2019 holding that Ms. Rinku Deb Barma (respondent No.4 herein), 2nd daughter of late Nagendra Deb Barma through his first wife Smt. Swapna Deb Barma was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. The tribunal, therefore, directed the official respondents to consider the claim of Ms. Rinku Deb Barma for compassionate appointment and complete the process within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Relevant extract of the impugned order passed by the tribunal is as under: “11. This being the legal position and in the absence of affirmative records to the contrary including specific permission accorded to the deceased Govt. employee for 2nd marriage under Tribal Customary laws and traditions, Smt. Manipriya Deb Barma, private respondent No.4 in the instant case, cannot claim to be the rightful legal widow of the deceased Govt. employee of Late Nagendra Deb Barma. employee for 2nd marriage under Tribal Customary laws and traditions, Smt. Manipriya Deb Barma, private respondent No.4 in the instant case, cannot claim to be the rightful legal widow of the deceased Govt. employee of Late Nagendra Deb Barma. However, children born out of the 2nd marriage can be treated as legitimate children of Late Nagendra Deb Barma. 12. Considering the above facts and also the legal position as cited above, it is felt that Ms. Rinku Deb Barma, 2nd daughter of the 1st marriage (their 1st daughter being already married) is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment by the respondent authorities. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent authorities to consider the claim of Ms. Rinku Deb Barma for offer of appointment on compassionate ground. The entire exercise may be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.” (xi) In this factual background, petitioner Smt. Manipriya Deb Barma, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order of the tribunal has challenged the said order claiming the following reliefs: a) Admit this petition. (b) Issue notice to the respondents. (c) Call for the relevant records of OA No. 040/00045 of 2016 from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. (d) To hear the parties. (e) To issue writ of certiorari to quash/set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.01.2019 of the tribunal. (f) To issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner under die in harness scheme in terms of their decision vide communication dated 19.06.2015 (Annexure-12) and release outstanding dues of late Nagendra Deb Barma. And, to direct respondents 1 to 3 for releasing other benefits in favour of Payel Deb Barma, daughter of the deceased and to make a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- to the petitioner for her husband’s marrying her during the lifetime of alleged first wife and damaging her life by such conduct. And, stay the implementation of the impugned order of the tribunal during the pendency of the writ petition. And, such other order as the court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. This court by an order dated 07.11.2019 passed in this writ petition directed the parties to maintain status quo. And, stay the implementation of the impugned order of the tribunal during the pendency of the writ petition. And, such other order as the court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. This court by an order dated 07.11.2019 passed in this writ petition directed the parties to maintain status quo. No separate order was passed in I.A 01 of 2019 which was filed by the petitioner for staying the operation of the impugned order of the tribunal. 4. The three official respondents filed a counter affidavit together. They asserted in their CA that Swapna Deb Barma was the first wife of Late Nagendra Deb Barma and though they were living separately, there was no judicial separation or divorce between them. Respondent No.4 Rinku Deb Barma is their daughter. The said official respondents further asserted that since Late Nagendra Deb Barma married petitioner Manipriya Deb Barma without official permission, their marriage could not be recognized for any official purpose. In paragraph 12 of the CA, the respondents asserted as under: “12. That, in regards to the paragraph no. 12 of the petition filed by the petitioner, the answering respondents most humbly submits that as per decision of the Railway Board dated 02/01/1992, the second wife and her children are not eligible for compensatory ground for appointment and as per case no. OA 45 of 2016, the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati by an order dated 29/01/2019 directed the respondent authority to consider the claim of Rinku Debbarma for offer of appointment on compensatory grounds and also directed the entire exercise may be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.” The official respondents also averted that compassionate appointment of Smt. Rinku Deb Barma (respondent No.4) was under process and nomination submitted by Late Nagendra Deb Barma in favour of his petitioner wife Manipriya Deb Barma was not acceptable under the Railway Rules since said Nagendra Deb Barma married petitioner Manipriya Deb Barma during the lifetime of his first wife Smt. Swapna Deb Barma without permission of the authority. 5. In her counter affidavit filed by Ms. 5. In her counter affidavit filed by Ms. Rinku Deb Barma (respondent No.4), it has been asserted by the respondent that since her late father Nagendra Deb Barma married her mother Smt. Swapna Deb Barma on 13.10.1977 in accordance with rites and customs of Hindu marriage, second marriage of her father with petitioner Manipriya Deb Barma during the lifetime of her mother was void. She further stated that she, her elder sister Sampa and brother Mithu were born within the wedlock of their parents. The respondent has further averted that since her father deserted her mother, she obtained maintenance allowance from Kamrup Family Court, the amount of which was later enhanced to Rs.2,000/- by the court. She has also asserted that petitioner Manipriya Deb Barma obtained survival certificate fraudulently suppressing the name of her and her mother, brother and sister. She claimed that in terms of Railway Board’s circular No. RBE 01/92 (Annexure R/2) petitioner Manipriya Deb Barma or the daughter born to her was not entitled to compassionate appointment since her late father married said Smt. Manipriya Deb Barma during the lifetime of her mother without permission of the Railway department where her father was an employee. She further asserted that under Rule 21(2) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, 2nd marriage by a railway employee during lifetime of his first wife is prohibited. She claimed that the impugned order of the tribunal directing the official respondents was founded on law and therefore, the impugned order of the tribunal does not call for any interference. 6. In her rejoinder, petitioner Manipriya Deb Barma claimed that there is no proof of marriage of her late husband with Smt. Swapna Deb Barma and moreover 2nd marriage among tribals is not legally prohibited because their customary law support such marriage and Hindu Marriage Act does not apply to them in view of the operation of Sub section (2) of Section 2 of the said act. She further claimed that Railway Board’s circular relied on by respondent No.4 is not applicable in this case. She has further asserted that in case she is not found eligible for compassionate appointment, the official respondents may give such appointment to her eligible daughter Ms. Payel Deb Barma. She further claimed that Railway Board’s circular relied on by respondent No.4 is not applicable in this case. She has further asserted that in case she is not found eligible for compassionate appointment, the official respondents may give such appointment to her eligible daughter Ms. Payel Deb Barma. By annexing a copy of the order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in W.P (C) No. 189 of 2020 (Annexure-30), petitioner Manipriya Deb Barma in her rejoinder has further asserted that she filed said W.P(C) No. 189 of 2020 challenging the caste status and nationality of Ms. Rinku Deb Barma (respondent No.4). It has been averted that pending enquiry of her caste status and nationality, said Ms. Rinku Deb Barma cannot be considered for compassionate appointment by the official respondents. 7. Heard Mr. N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. De, learned advocate appearing for the official respondents. Also heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 8. The bone of contention of Mr. Das, counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the official respondents after examining the factual context and the law involved in the case agreed to provide compassionate appointment to petitioner Manipriya Deb Barma and communicated their offer of compassionate appointment to the petitioner vide their communication dated 20.02.2015 (Annexure-8) which was reiterated in their later communication dated 19.06.2015 (Annexure-12) addressed to the petitioner. The petitioner also conveyed her acceptance of the said offer of the official respondents by making a communication dated 16.07.2015 (Annexure-14). Counsel argued that the tribunal allowed the petition of respondent No.4 by the impugned judgment by directing the official respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the said respondent without considering these facts for which tribunal’s order is liable to be set aside. Counsel contends that since their customary law support 2nd marriage during the lifetime of the first wife and Hindu Marriage Act does not apply to their case, claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be discarded on the ground that she was married by her late husband during the lifetime of his first wife particularly when she was also otherwise eligible for such appointment. Counsel submits that tribunal did not consider the fact that even if the petitioner could not be considered for compassionate appointment for any reason, her daughter Payel Deb Barma should not have been denied such appointment because as a daughter of late Nagendra Deb Barma she would have enjoyed equal status with the other children of late Nagendra Deb Barma in respect of his estate. Counsel submits that petitioner also filed W.P (C) No. 189 of 2020 challenging the caste status and nationality of respondent No.4 which was decided by the learned Single Judge of this court on 04.03.2020. Court did not make any observation on the issue of nationality since representation of the petitioner was pending before the SDM. With regard to the challenge to the caste status, court observed that insofar as cancellation of caste certificate is concerned, same may be done in terms of the direction of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another versus Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 . According to Mr. Das, learned counsel, these issues were never considered by the tribunal and as such the impugned order passed by the tribunal should be set aside and the official respondents may be directed by this court to offer compassionate appointment to petitioner Smt. Manipriya Deb Barma and release the outstanding dues of PF, gratuity etc. of late Nagendra Deb Barma to the daughter of the petitioner. 9. Mr. A. De, counsel appearing for the official respondents argued that pursuant to the order of the tribunal, the official respondents started processing for appointing Ms. Rinku Deb Barma (respondent No.4) on compassionate ground due to the death of her father in harness. Mr. De, learned counsel argues that the extant Railway Rules and more particularly the Railway Board’s circular No. RBE 01/92 (Supplementary Circular No.5 to Master Circular No.16) do not permit compassionate appointment of the 2nd widow and her children unless the administration permitted the 2nd marriage, in special circumstances, taking into account the personal law etc. In the given case late husband of the petitioner never obtained permission for contracting 2nd marriage with the petitioner. Counsel submits that the said circular was presented before the tribunal. In the given case late husband of the petitioner never obtained permission for contracting 2nd marriage with the petitioner. Counsel submits that the said circular was presented before the tribunal. The tribunal after considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the merit of the said circular dated 02.01.1992 of the Railway Board, allowed the claim of compassionate appointment in favour of Ms. Rinku Deb Barma (respondent No.4). 10. Mr. B. Banerjee, counsel appearing for respondent No.4 contends that claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment is supported by law. Counsel submits that after appreciating the facts and circumstances presented before the tribunal and after complete application of judicial mind, tribunal decided the case in favour of respondent No.4 directing the official respondents to provide compassionate appointment to her on the ground of the death of her father in harness. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel, argued that the Railway Board’s circular dated 02.01.1992 stands good since the same has not been challenged before any judicial forum and the official respondents cannot provide compassionate appointment to Smt. Manipriya Deb Barma (petitioner) bypassing their own circular. Counsel further contended that petitioner was completely aware of the fact that Smt. Swapna Deb Barma was the first wife of late Nagendra Deb Barma who had three children including Ms. Rinku Deb Barma through his first wife. Despite knowing these facts, she fraudulently obtained a false survival certificate and submitted it before the official respondents to defeat the claim of respondent No.4. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel submits that in view of such conduct of the petitioner she does not deserve any equitable relief. Counsel further contends that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment. It is an exception to general rule of recruitment in public services by open competition. Therefore, if there is a scheme or circular for such compassionate appointment, the same should be strictly adhered to. In support of his contention, counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 wherein the Apex Court has held as under: “8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. In support of his contention, counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 wherein the Apex Court has held as under: “8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant. 9. Normally, the three basic requirements to claim appointment under any scheme for compassionate appointment are: (i) an application by a dependent family member of the deceased employee; (ii) fulfillment of the eligibility criteria prescribed under the scheme, for compassionate appointment; and (iii) availability of posts, for making such appointment. If a scheme provides for automatic appointment to a specified family member, on the death of any employee, without any of the aforesaid requirements, it can be said that the scheme creates a right in favour of the family member for appointment on the date of death of the employee. In such an event the scheme in force at the time of death would apply. 10. In such an event the scheme in force at the time of death would apply. 10. On the other hand, if a scheme provides that on the death of an employee, a dependent family member is entitled to appointment merely on making of an application, whether any vacancy exists or not, and without the need to fulfill any eligibility criteria, then the scheme creates a right in favour of the applicant, on making the application and the Scheme that was in force at the time when the application for compassionate appointment was filed, will apply. But such schemes are rare and in fact, virtually nil. 11. Normal schemes contemplate compassionate appointment on an application by a dependent family member, subject to the applicant fulfilling the prescribed eligibility requirements, and subject to availability of a vacancy for making the appointment. Under many schemes, the applicant has only a right to be considered for appointment against a specified quota, even if he fulfils all the eligibility criteria; and the selection is made of the most deserving among the several competing applicants, to the limited quota of posts available. In all these schemes there is a need to verify the eligibility and antecedents of the applicant or the financial capacity of the family. There is also a need for the applicant to wait in a queue for a vacancy to arise, or for a Selection Committee to assess the comparative need of a large number of applicants so as to fill a limited number of earmarked vacancies. 12. Obviously, therefore, there can be no immediate or automatic appointment merely on an application. Several circumstances having a bearing on eligibility, and financial condition, upto the date of consideration may have to be taken into account. As none of the applicants under the scheme has a vested right, the scheme that is in force when the application is actually considered, and not the scheme that was in force earlier when the application was made, will be applicable.” 11. Counsel submits that the Railway Board’s circular dated 02.01.1992 with regard to appointment on compassionate grounds provides that the 2nd widow and her children are not to be considered for such appointment unless under special circumstances permission for 2nd marriage was granted to the deceased employee taking into account his personal law. Counsel submits that the Railway Board’s circular dated 02.01.1992 with regard to appointment on compassionate grounds provides that the 2nd widow and her children are not to be considered for such appointment unless under special circumstances permission for 2nd marriage was granted to the deceased employee taking into account his personal law. Counsel argues that this circular which is in force requires strict compliance for giving compassionate appointment and therefore petitioner is not entitled to such appointment. Counsel, therefore, urges the court to reject her petition upholding the order passed by the tribunal. 12. In this factual background of the case, the following point arises for our consideration. Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case and materials available on record, impugned order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the tribunal directing the official respondents to consider the claim of Ms. Rinku Deb Barma (respondent No.4) for compassionate appointment is sustainable or not. 13. In the course of hearing, the tribunal examined the service records of the deceased employee and found that he furnished the details of his family members in the prescribed family declaration form from time to time which was also countersigned by the authorized officer of his department. Said declaration form contained the names of his wife Swapna Deb Barma, daughters Sampa Deb Barma, Rinku Deb Barma (respondent No.4) and son upto 12.07.2005. Only in the declaration form submitted on 13.07.2005 the deceased employee included the name of petitioner Manipriya Deb Barma and her daughter Payel Deb Barma besides the names of Smt. Swapna Deb Barma and other three children including respondent No.4. From the service records of the deceased employee and court orders in the maintenance proceedings whereby the deceased employee was asked to pay maintenance allowance to his wife Swapna Deb Barma, tribunal held that Smt. Swapna Deb Barma was the first wife of the deceased employee and Ms. Rinku Deb Barma (respondent No.4) was born to them through his first wife. Tribunal also relied on Railway Board’s circular No. RBE 01/1992 dated 02.01.1992 which provided as under: “RBE No. 01/1992: Appointment on Compassionate Grounds – Cases of Second window No.E(NG)II/91/RC-1/136, dated 02.01.1992 (SC No.5 to MC No.16) Sub: Appointment on Compassionate Grounds - Cases of Second window and her wards. 1. It is clarified that in the case of Railway employees dying in harness, etc. 1. It is clarified that in the case of Railway employees dying in harness, etc. leaving more than one widow along with children born to the second wife, while settlement dues may be shared by both the widows due to Court orders or otherwise on merits of each case, appointments on compassionate grounds to the Second widow and her children are not to be considered unless the administration has permitted the second marriage, in special circumstances, taking into account the personal law, etc. 2. The fact that the second marriage is not permissible clarified is invariably in the terms and conditions advised in the offer of initial appointment. 3. This may be kept in view and the cases for compassionate appointment to the second widow or her wards need not be forwarded to Railway Board.” 14. Tribunal also referred to Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and expressed surprise as to why the conduct of the deceased employee was not questioned by his department for contracting 2nd marriage in violation of the said service conduct rules. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant provision of Rule 21 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 which provides as under: “21. Restrictions Regarding Marriage: (1) No railway servant shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with a person having a spouse living; and (2) No railway servant, having a spouse living shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any person. (3) A railway servant who has married or married a person other than of Indian Nationality shall forthwith intimate the fact to the Government. Provided that the government may permit a railway servant to enter into, or contract, any such marriage as is referred to in clause (1) or clause (2), if it is satisfied that — (a) such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such railway servant and other party to the marriage; and (b) there are other grounds for so doing.” 15. The present petitioner who was a respondent before the tribunal also raised the issue of nationality and caste status of Ms. Rinku Deb Barma (respondent No.4 herein). Tribunal did not accept her plea on the ground that she could not produce any document in support of her stand. The present petitioner who was a respondent before the tribunal also raised the issue of nationality and caste status of Ms. Rinku Deb Barma (respondent No.4 herein). Tribunal did not accept her plea on the ground that she could not produce any document in support of her stand. As discussed, petitioner Manipriya Deb Barma also filed W.P(C) No. 189 of 2020 in this court challenging the nationality and caste status of respondent No.4 in which the following order was passed by this court on 04.03.2020 : “The petitioner claims to be the wife of the deceased railway servant. She has sought compassionate appointment on the basis of death of her husband. The respondent No.7 claims to be the daughter of the first wife of the deceased. She contends that the deceased never got divorced from her mother and, therefore, could not have remarried with the petitioner. The disputes between these two persons as to who should be given appointment on compassionate grounds are pending. Pending such issues the petitioner had written to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for cancellation of the said two certificates on the ground that they have been obtained by making false claims. Insofar as the nationality certificate is concerned, the petitioner had applied to the SDM under letter dated 09.08.2018. His representation is pending which may be disposed of by the said authority. About the petitioner’s allegations, I make absolutely no observations. So far as the cancellation of the caste certificate is concerned, the same can be done only as provided by the Supreme Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another versus Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 and the relevant statutory rules for which purpose the petitioner must approach the correct authority. With these observations and directions the petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.” 16. Counsel of the petitioner did not apprise us as to whether petitioner approached the competent authority seeking cancellation of the caste certificate of Ms. Rinku Deb Barma after the said order was passed in W.P(C) No. 189 of 2020. On the other hand tribunal has recorded clear finding that Manipriya Deb Barma could not produce any proof with regard to her challenge to the caste status and nationality of Ms. Rinku Deb Barma. 17. Rinku Deb Barma after the said order was passed in W.P(C) No. 189 of 2020. On the other hand tribunal has recorded clear finding that Manipriya Deb Barma could not produce any proof with regard to her challenge to the caste status and nationality of Ms. Rinku Deb Barma. 17. There is no doubt that for appointment, respondent No.4 will be required to file declaration supported by documents with regard to her nationality and caste status subject to verification by the appointing authority. If she resorts to falsity, legal consequence will follow. Petitioner cannot defeat her claim for compassionate appointment on such unfounded allegations if she is found otherwise eligible. 18. With regard to the declaration of the deceased employee in his Will (Annexure-5) that in the event of his death in harness, his wife Manipriya Deb Barma would be given compassionate appointment, tribunal rightly held that no govt. servant can decide by execution of a Will who of his family will be given compassionate appointment in the event of his death in harness. Such appointment can be given to eligible members of the family of the deceased only in terms of the applicable scheme/rules and regulations. 19. For the aforesaid reasons tribunal held that even though the daughter of the petitioner would be treated a legitimate child of the deceased employee for all purposes, claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment would not succeed in view of the Railway Board’s circular quoted above, which provided that compassionate appointment would not be given to second wife if the 2nd marriage, even if permissible under custom, was contracted without prior permission of the administration. Apparently petitioner has raised no challenge to the circular. 20. The question of permissibility of 2nd marriage among tribals is not relevant because the Railway Board’s circular has provided in clear terms that 2nd wife, where marriage is contracted without prior permission of the administration would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. Therefore, tribunal decided that Ms. Rinku Deb Barma, daughter of the deceased through his first wife was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment and accordingly directed the official respondents to consider her claim for compassionate appointment. Therefore, tribunal decided that Ms. Rinku Deb Barma, daughter of the deceased through his first wife was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment and accordingly directed the official respondents to consider her claim for compassionate appointment. This circular intends to give primacy to the entitlement of the first wife to compassionate appointment where the 2nd marriage is contracted by an employee without prior permission of the administration even though his custom permits such marriage and by no stress of imagination the circular can be said to have been made to nullify 2nd marriage where it is permissible under the custom of the employee. Therefore, the question with regard to the validity of the 2nd marriage of the deceased employee cannot be an issue in this case. 21. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, we find no ground to interfere with the decision of the tribunal. Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed. In terms of the above, the case is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of