ORDER/JUDGMENT : – Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Utkarsh Agarwal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. 2. This petition has been filed assailing impugned order dated 9-6-2016 passed by the Conservator of Forest and Divisional Forest Officer, General Forest Division, Dindori, whereby an application moved by the petitioner claiming compassionate appointment on account of death of her brother late Shri Ashish Dixit on 9-4-2011 while he was working as a Forestor and was deployed in the service of the respondents has been turned down in consonance with the recitals of the policy dated 29-9-2014 framed by the State Government, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, referring to para 2.6 of the said policy wherein it is mentioned that only unmarried daughter dependent on the deceased Government servant is entitled to compassionate appointment. 3. Shri Agarwal submits that admittedly petitioner is married. She is wife of one Dr. Brajendra Shukla. Secondly, there is no evidence on record to substantiate that despite marriage to Shri Brajendra Shukla, she was dependent on her brother late Shri Ashish Dixit. It is further submitted that merely on the strength of getting a succession certificate to the estate of Shri Ashish Dixit, she cannot claim compassionate appointment. 4. Shri Agarwal further submits that the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as the concept of equity cannot be stretched to an extent so to belie the provisions contained in the policy so also the aims and object for grant of compassionate appointment. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner had made a representation to the authorities on 29-1-2019, claiming compassionate appointment. In the application it is mentioned that mother of the applicant had died when the petitioner and her brother deceased Ashish Dixit were small. Her father was working as Vanpal when he died on 21-4-1998. In place of her father, her brother Ashish Dixit was given compassionate appointment. He was unmarried and he died on 9-4-2011. She has further mentioned in her application for grant of compassionate appointment that after death of her brother Ashish Dixit, she is the only survivor having already lost her parents and has no other surviving brother and sister. In place of her father, her brother Ashish Dixit was given compassionate appointment. He was unmarried and he died on 9-4-2011. She has further mentioned in her application for grant of compassionate appointment that after death of her brother Ashish Dixit, she is the only survivor having already lost her parents and has no other surviving brother and sister. She further makes a mention of she being declared a successor to the estate of Shri Ashish Dixit and by virtue of such succession certificate, she received all the death-cum-retirement benefits of late Shri Ashish Dixit. In this application itself it is mentioned that she is married. Her husband is unemployed and, therefore, on the strength of such statement she claimed compassionate appointment. However, nowhere in the application, annexure P/8, it is mentioned that she was dependent on her brother Ashish Dixit even after her marriage and was not dependent on her husband. 6. In the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and another vs. V. Somyashree, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 704 it is held that unless rules provide for, only ‘unmarried daughter’ and ‘widowed daughter’ who are dependent upon deceased Government servant at the time of his death and living with him can be said to be ‘dependent’ on a deceased Government servant. 7. Similar issue was considered by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of State of U. P. and another vs. Madhavi Mishra and two others, in Special Appeal No. 223/2021, wherein Division Bench of Allahabad High Court had an occasion to deal with the ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court wherein it is held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule; that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment; the appointment to any public post in service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; and appointments can be made on compassionate ground only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State policy and or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy. 8. 8. Besides this another aspect which needs to be considered and which has been considered by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of State of U. P. and another vs. Madhvi Mishra (supra) while referring to the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of V. Sunithakumari vs. E.S.E.B. and others, 1992 SCC Online Ker 145, is that Courts have to take into consideration the aspect of dependency of a married daughter and the socioeconomic reality of the Indian society which is that a married daughter is excluded from that category and that exclusion is not without reason as a married daughter goes out of the family and is dependent on her husband for her necessities. The father could render financial assistance to his married daughter, if he is in position to give assistance, but that is not a reason to hold that married daughter still continue to be dependent on her father specially when law enjoins a duty on the husband to maintain his wife and enables her to claim alimony in case he refuses to pay. 9. Thus, it is evident that apart from there being a justification for excluding married daughter, a married daughter claiming compassionate appointment even on the touchstone of equality is required to show that she was dependent on the Government employee who died in harness and without revealing the fact of dependency, compassionate appointment cannot be sought as a matter of right. Therefore, the petitioner having failed to prove the aspect of dependency and merely saying that her husband is unemployed is not sufficient to claim compassionate appointment specially when there is no whisper in the impugned representation, annexure P/8, in regard to dependency on the deceased. In fact, it has come on record that deceased Ashish Dixit was posted at village Barogha, District Dindori whereas petitioner is resident of Shukla Parisar in front of Range Office, Tahsil Mandla, District Mandla, which is another proof of the fact that she was not dependent on her deceased brother late Ashish Dixit. 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity calling for any interference inasmuch as it is settled principle of law that compassionate appointment is not a source of alternative employment or a backdoor entry in service. 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity calling for any interference inasmuch as it is settled principle of law that compassionate appointment is not a source of alternative employment or a backdoor entry in service. It is to meet the exigency arising out of death of bread earner of the family. 11. This petition fails and is dismissed.