ORDER : The Present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No:4443/A3-2/14, dated 07.10.2014, rejecting the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 3. Heard Sri G.U.R.C. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society appearing for 2nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for the 1st respondent. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the mother of the petitioner died in harness on 01.02.2014 while she was working as Multi Purpose Worker (MPW) in Andhra Pradesh Residential School, S.M. Puram, Srikakulam District (i.e.) 3rd respondent institution, leaving behind her, the petitioner and one son viz., K. Chandrasekhar. The father of the petitioner died prior to the death of her mother. 5. The brother of the petitioner, who loved a girl and went away with her during the life time of her mother and living separately. The petitioner married one Satyarao in the month of May, 2005. Due to family disputes, he deserted the petitioner and since then they are living separately. Therefore, she became dependent of her mother for survival. 6. After the sudden demise of the mother of the petitioner, she made an application along with all necessary documents seeking to provide employment on compassionate grounds. The request of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2, vide Proceedings dated 7.10.2014, on the ground that she did not produce the Death Certificate of her mother and the ‘no objection certificate’ from their family members. It is the contention of the petitioner that she has submitted the “death certificate” and “no objection certificate” given by her brother along with the application. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the procedure contemplated under clause 12 of G.O.Ms.No.350, GA (Ser.A), Dept., dated 30.07.1999 in which scheme for compassionate appointment is formulated, the application of the petitioner has to be placed before the 3 Members Committee and after taking decision by the said Committee, the said application has to be forwarded to the 2nd respondent for consideration. In the present case, the 2nd respondent directly rejected the application of the petitioner without placing it before the Committee Members, which is arbitrary and in violation of clauses 10 and 12 of the scheme for compassionate appointment. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the very object of the scheme for compassionate appointment is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to the bereaved family member of a Government Servant dying in harness leaving his family members in penury without any means of livelihood. As such, the rejection of application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on technical grounds is against the object of the Scheme. Hence, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and against to the object of the scheme and sought to allow the writ petition directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment through Respondent No.3 consequent to the death of her mother. The 2nd respondent vide proceedings, dated 07.10.2014 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the death certificate of the deceased employee was not enclosed and also “no objection certificate” from other family members was not enclosed. 10. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel that as per G.O.Ms.No.350, GA (Ser.A) Dept., dated 30.07.1999, the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment since she is not the only daughter and is having unmarried younger brother (i.e.) Chandrasekhar, who is a Government servant. As one of the family members of the deceased employee working as Government employee, it is not feasible to consider the application of the petitioner as per the instructions issued by the Government vide Circular Memo No.60681/Ser.A/2003-1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 12.08.2003. 11. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the contention of the petitioner that her brother was married is absolutely false and no authentic document was submitted by the petitioner along with the application to justify that the petitioner was dependent on her mother. It is also contended that ‘No Objection Certificate’ has to be furnished on Indian Non-Judicial Stamp Paper, but no such document was submitted by the petitioner by following the said procedure. It is also contended that ‘No Objection Certificate’ has to be furnished on Indian Non-Judicial Stamp Paper, but no such document was submitted by the petitioner by following the said procedure. The death certificate of the deceased employee was also submitted by the petitioner only after rejection of her application. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the present writ petition. 12. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, it appears that there is no any dispute with regard to death of mother of the petitioner in harness while working as Multi Purpose Worker (MPW), leaving behind her, the petitioner and one son viz., Chandrasekhar. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner made an application to the respondents within the stipulated time to consider her case to appointment in any suitable post on compassionate grounds for the death of her mother. 13. The petitioner is contending that she submitted all documents including death certificate of her mother and “no objection certificate” given by her brother along with her application. It is also the case of the petitioner that after her marriage, due to some disputes, her husband deserted her and she is living with her mother as her dependent. It is further case of the petitioner that during the life time of her mother, her brother separated from the family and living separately marrying a girl, who loved him against to the will and wish of her mother. As such, it is the contention of the petitioner that she is the only dependent on her mother and due to untimely death of her mother, she became destitute without any source of income for survival. 14. As seen from the proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued in Rc.No.4443/A3-2/14, dated 07.10.2014 it is informed to the petitioner that her representation for providing appointment on compassionate grounds is not feasible for consideration for the reason that she is not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds since she is not the only daughter and is having one younger brother, who is a Government servant. 15. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that subsequent to the rejection order, death certificate of the deceased employee was submitted and the “no objection certificate” was not submitted on Indian Non-Judicial Stamp Paper. 15. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that subsequent to the rejection order, death certificate of the deceased employee was submitted and the “no objection certificate” was not submitted on Indian Non-Judicial Stamp Paper. However, it is the case of the respondents that the brother of the petitioner was working as School Assistant and as such where a family member of the deceased employee working as a Government servant as per the Government Rules, the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. 16. Upon careful perusal of the comprehensive note on the scheme of compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased Government employees issued vide Circular Memo No.60681/Ser.A/2003-1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 12.08.2003, in which it is provided that one of the dependent family members of the deceased Government employee, who die in harness, there being no other earning member in the family are eligible for appointment to a job in Government services. As per the said scheme, dependent family member means a spouse, son/daughter of regular government employees. As per the said scheme, it is provided that in the family of the deceased government employee, if the son, who is employee, is separated from the family and if the family is without an earning member, the spouse/son/daughter out of the remaining family may be considered for compassionate appointment. 17. In the present case, the petitioner is claiming that her brother viz., Chandrasekhar separated from the family and living separately during the life time of her mother. If the contention of the respondents is carefully scrutinized, it appears from their contention that the brother of the petitioner was a government employee, and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for consideration on compassionate appointment. The respondents never contended that the petitioner and her brother are living jointly and the contention of the petitioner that her brother separated from their family is correct or not. Under these circumstances, there is no option to this Court to believe the contention of the petitioner that her brother separated from the family during the life time of her mother and living separately. In view of that situation, it has to be construed that the petitioner is the only person depending on her mother and she lost her bread winner for untimely death of her mother. 18. In view of that situation, it has to be construed that the petitioner is the only person depending on her mother and she lost her bread winner for untimely death of her mother. 18. In G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.07.1999, it is clarified that when there is only a married daughter to the deceased government employee without older or younger brothers or sisters and the spouse of the deceased government employee is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment, such married daughter may be considered for compassionate appointment provided she is dependent on the deceased government employee. As per this clarification also the case of the petitioner can be considered though she is a married daughter of the deceased government employee, even in the absence of any proof about her desertion with her husband. 19. The objective of the scheme of compassionate appointment is a social security measure to help families of deceased Government employees. Under the scheme, one of the dependent family members of the deceased government employee, who die in harness, is eligible for appointment to a job in a government service there being no other earning member in the family. 20. The sudden jerk in the family due to the sudden death of the bread winner can only be absorbed by providing with a compassionate appointment and the grief stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony they have suffered. 21. This Court is unable to agree with the stand of the respondents. In the opinion of this Court, if such claims are rejected on such technical grounds, the very object of scheme of compassionate appointments to help the destitute families would be defeated. 22. The view of this Court had fortified from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Limited, (2000) 6 SCC 493 , in which their Lordships held as hereunder: “In the case of appointment considering the social and economic justice as enshrined in the constitution, denials of deserving cases are liable to be set aside. Further, the purpose of providing compassionate ground to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigenous circumstances. Hence, in considering the case for compassionate appointment, the authorities are supposed to adopt a humane outlook.” 23. Further, the purpose of providing compassionate ground to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigenous circumstances. Hence, in considering the case for compassionate appointment, the authorities are supposed to adopt a humane outlook.” 23. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the case in the Superintending Engineer vs. V. Jaya, (2007) 6 MLJ 1011 , wherein their Lordships comprising a Division Bench of Madras High Court have held at para No.7 as extracted hereunder: 7. However, in a case of request for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot ignore the very purpose of providing employment on compassionate ground to the dependant of an employee/government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else as it is done so in order to mitigate the hardship to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. The concept of compassionate employment is intended to alleviate the distress of the family and it is for such purpose appointments are permissible and provided even in the rules and regulations and any rigid approach or too technical objections may defeat the very object of the scheme. It is for that purpose while considering the request for compassionate appointment; the authorities are expected to act as a Good Samaritan overlooking the cobwebs of technicalities. 24. In the above mentioned reasons, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment in any suitable post in the 2nd respondent Society under the scheme of compassionate appointment provided by the State Government. 25. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions: (i) The proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued in Rc.No.4443/A3-2/14, dated 07.10.2014 is hereby set aside; (ii) The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in any suitable post subject to her eligibility, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and (iii) No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.