JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed to set aside the memo dated 13.03.2020 issued by the 1st respondent. A writ of Mandamus is sought to set aside the said memo dated 13.03.2020 to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner is the daughter of late Sri K.Konda Babu, who was working as Police Constable with the respondents died in February, 2014, leaving the petitioner and her mother and two other children. Initially, the widow of late Konda Babu-the petitioner’s mother submitted an application for compassionate appointment, but later, she withdrew the same and requested the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner. After protracted correspondence lasting over a number of years, a final order dated 13.03.2020 was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner and the same is questioned in this writ petition. 2. This Court has heard Sri R.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for Services-I, who appeared for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s mother made an application within one year of the death of her husband for compassionate appointment. Later, on health grounds, she requested the respondents to provide employment to the present petitioner, who is her educated daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that since the application of the mother was submitted within time, the issue is not in doubt. He points out that on 24.11.2016, the petitioner’s mother requested the respondents to provide employment to the present petitioner herein as she is educated. 4. This was followed by an application by the petitioner herself on 06.01.2017. On 24.01.2017, the request made by the mother was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the verification of the family membership certificate revealed that the petitioner was married and hence, she is not eligible for compassionate appointment. Later, the petitioner started correspondence with the State/the respondents seeking employment directly. The respondents rejected her case on 13.03.2020 essentially on the ground that she is married and that she is not dependent upon the deceased. This is questioned by the petitioner by arguing that in view of the settled law on the subject even a married daughter is eligible for compassionate appointment. The learned counsel relies upon the case law which is enclosed to the writ petition including the Division Bench judgments of the A.P.High Court. This is questioned by the petitioner by arguing that in view of the settled law on the subject even a married daughter is eligible for compassionate appointment. The learned counsel relies upon the case law which is enclosed to the writ petition including the Division Bench judgments of the A.P.High Court. Ultimately, he relies upon the order of this Court in WP.No.10340 of 2014 dated 26.02.2021 to argue that a married daughter is also eligible for compassionate appointment. Apart from that, learned counsel argues that the certificates filed, including “no earning member certificate” issued by the Revenue Department on 11.09.2019 shows that the petitioner is not an earning member of the family. Learned counsel relies upon the case law which is enclosed and the last case filed with a memo to argue that married daughter is eligible if she is dependent on the family and does not have any income. He also submits that the petitioner has taken a customary divorce and an application for formal divorce also pending adjudication in F.C.OP.No.1804 of 2017 before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam. A copy of the customary divorce dated 16.11.2016 is enclosed. On the basis of the facts and law, the learned counsel submits that this is a fit case to order compassionate appointment as the family of the petitioner is in distress and needs immediate help. Therefore,he prays for an order. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services very strongly argues for the respondents. He urges that the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment as she has not proved that she is ‘dependent’ on the family. It is also strongly urged that the petitioner's husband is working as Police Constable in Armed Reserve, Visakhapatnam City and that there is no proof filed that divorce was in fact taken. Relying upon the documents enclosed to the counter affidavit including the service record of the petitioner’s husband, it is urged that the petitioner’s husband disclosed that he is married to the present petitioner and the petitioner and their two children are shown as nominees in the service register. 6. Learned Government Pleader argues that the scheme of appointment of the dependent for compassionate appointment very clearly states that there should not be any earning member in the family; that a married daughter is also eligible, provided she is dependent on the family. 6. Learned Government Pleader argues that the scheme of appointment of the dependent for compassionate appointment very clearly states that there should not be any earning member in the family; that a married daughter is also eligible, provided she is dependent on the family. It also needs to be proved that the family is in a difficult situation and that a compassionate appointment is immediately needed. He points out that in this case, the documents filed by the petitioner are self-contradictory and right from the initial rejection on 24.01.2017, it is made clear that as the petitioner is a married daughter who is not dependent on the deceased or his widow, she is not entitled to compassionate appointment. He states no proof is filed to show that the petitioner meets these requirements. He therefore urges that the writ should be dismissed. COURT: 7. This Court after considering the facts and the circumstances, notices that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in more than one judgment has clearly held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in public services. The normal rule of appointment in State services is appointment by inviting applications and considering all the eligible candidates (short listing either by test or interview or both) for the purpose of selection. In cases of compassionate appointment, this procedure is not followed and this scheme is recognised as an exception to the general rule. That is the reason why the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned more than once that the terms of the scheme providing for compassionate appointments should be carefully scrutinized and meticulously followed before an appointment is offered. Paras 11 and 12 of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Shiv Karampal Sahu, 2009 (11) SCC 453 are reproduced hereunder: “11. The scheme for grant of Monetary compensation to the dependents of the deceased or injured who are affected in any kind of terrorist/virulent/communal attack must be considered in terms of the stipulations made in the circular letters containing policy decisions. Appointment on compassionate ground, it is trite, must be made keeping in view the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Appointment on compassionate ground, it is trite, must be made keeping in view the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such schemes cannot be given an expansive meaning as the constitutional scheme envisages that all persons who are entitled to be considered for appointment would be eligible for being considered therefor. Any policy decision for appointment on compassionate ground must, therefore, receive a strict construction. In State of J & K and Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir MANU/SC/3077/2006 : AIR2006SC2743 , the law was laid down in the following terms: 12. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought "compassion", the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.” (emphasis supplied) 8. A married daughter is also eligible for employment under the compassionate scheme, if satisfactory evidence is available to show that she is dependent upon the family and that she does not have any independent source of income. Likewise it must be proved that even the widow of the deceased like in this case is also without an income and that there is an immediate/ pressing need for granting compassionate appointment to a member of the family to alleviate the suffering of the family of the deceased. 9. Likewise it must be proved that even the widow of the deceased like in this case is also without an income and that there is an immediate/ pressing need for granting compassionate appointment to a member of the family to alleviate the suffering of the family of the deceased. 9. If the case on hand is examined, it is clear that the respondents have from 2017 onwards clearly mentioned that the petitioner is married, and that she is not entitled to compassionate appointment. This is stated in the letter of 24.01.2017 itself. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit in which it is clearly reiterated that the correspondence revealed that the applicant’s husband is working as a police constable in Visakhapatnam and that the service book of the said husband revealed that she is the legally wedded wife of the police constable. They have filed copies of the nominations for death- cum-gratuity and also for family pension along with the counter affidavit. It is important to note that no rejoinder is filed to the counter to rebut this important aspect. The documents which are enclosed to the counter affidavit are also not denied in any manner whatsoever. 10. Coming to the alleged divorce, this Court notices that on 24.01.2017, a memo was issued to the petitioner’s mother which is filed as a material paper. This memo issued by the Commandant, 5th Bn., APSP, Vijayanagaram clearly states that the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment as she is married. Thereafter, it appears that on 20.10.2017, a petition has been filed in F.C.OP.No.1804 of 2017 on the file of the Family Judge at Visakhapatnam. In addition to this, a deed of divorce dated 16.11.2016 is also filed along with the writ affidavit. According to this document, the petitioner and her husband mutually decided to divorce on 16.11.2016. 11. This Court finds that there is no mention whatsoever about this customary divorce in the F.C.OP.No.1804 of 2017 that is filed before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam. Apart from this, the law on customary divorce is very clear. If there is a trade, custom or usage prevalent in the petitioner’s community permitting such a divorce, the same should be very clearly pleaded and proved. Apart from this, the law on customary divorce is very clear. If there is a trade, custom or usage prevalent in the petitioner’s community permitting such a divorce, the same should be very clearly pleaded and proved. In the case on hand, except for mentioning that she got divorced as per custom, no other pleading is visible to show that in the community of the petitioner, there is a prevalent custom and that hence validity that can be attached to this deed of divorce. In the opinion of this Court, the absence of any such pleading or clear evidence about the same, clearly disentitles the petitioner to claim any relief on that basis. 12. In the case law that is filed by the petitioner in WP.No.16242 of 2013, the Division Bench noticed that there is a certificate issued by the Special Grade Deputy Collector, R.R.District serving that the petitioner’s financial position is unsound. The report of the Station House Officer, Ghatkesar shows that the petitioner and her husband “in that case” were living in the house of the deceased and were taking care of the widow. The Division Bench found that the petitioner therein was living in out house and eking her livelihood by stitching clothes. 13. In W.P.No.41931 of 2017 also it was noticed that the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) reported that the social and economic status of the petitioner is not sound. The RDO himself recommended the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. At more than one place, the Division Bench found that the petitioner in the case was dependent upon the deceased. Similarly, in WP.No.929 of 2020, the issue was whether a married daughter is entitled to compassionate appointment. Learned single Judge held that she was entitled to compassionate appointment “if she was otherwise eligible for appointment and subject to fulfilling the conditions”. The same is the issue in WP.No.10340 of 2014. Para 10 makes it clear. 14. Therefore, a reading of all these judgments which are relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner it was found that the petitioners were dependent on the deceased and therefore, the cases were recommended for compassionate appointment. 15. The same is the issue in WP.No.10340 of 2014. Para 10 makes it clear. 14. Therefore, a reading of all these judgments which are relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner it was found that the petitioners were dependent on the deceased and therefore, the cases were recommended for compassionate appointment. 15. In the case on hand, as mentioned earlier, from 2017 onwards, till the final rejection in 2020, the respondents were reiterating that the petitioner is a married daughter and is thus not a ‘dependent’ on the family of the deceased. Respondents have filed proof to show that the petitioner’s husband is working in the City of Visakhapatnam as a Police constable. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has actually obtained a proper divorce from her husband. No rejoinder has been filed to the facts asserted by the respondents. On verification of the website of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam shows that the petition F.C.OP.No.1804 of 2017 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.12.2018 itself. Even if this data visible from the website of the e-Courts of the Visakhapatnam is ignored, the facts remains that the petitioner has not filed any proof whatsoever to show that she is a dependent. One of the most critical aspects has to be proved is that the family is in financial trouble/economic distress and that the petitioner is wholly dependent upon the deceased and if the compassionate appointment is not given, the condition of the petitioner and her family will be in great difficulty. In the case on hand it assumes greater importance in view of the stand taken that the petitioner is married to police constable. 16. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has grossly failed to prove that she is “dependent” on the income of the deceased father and that the family has no other source of income. 17. In view of what is stated above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever in this writ petition and the same is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.