JUDGMENT Heard Sri S.P. Maurya, learned counsel for the appellant, learned State Counsel representing the State-respondents, Sri Prashant Arora, learned counsel representing the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Sri R.N. Shukla, learned counsel representing the respondent No.5. 2. Proceedings of this special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 have been instituted assailing the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by learned Single Judge whereby Writ-A No.6102 of 2002 filed by the petitioner/appellant has been dismissed. 3. At this juncture itself, we may note that Writ-A No.6102 of 2002 was filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging an order dated 11.10.2002 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur, whereby the selection of the appellant/petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra was deferred. The appellant/petitioner had also challenged another order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur, dated 11.10.2002 whereby new proposal for appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra was invited. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for appellant/petitioner is that at the relevant point of time, the Government Order which governed appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra, namely, the Government Order dated 01.07.2000, did not prohibit appointment of daughter-in-law of the Chairman of the Shiksha Samiti, who is the Gram Pradhan of the village concerned and, as such, the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer on the said count, is not sustainable. 5. It has also been argued by learned counsel representing the appellant/petitioner that learned Single Judge has not taken into account the exact purport of the Government Order dated 01.07.2000, which has resulted in dismissal of the writ petition and hence, this special appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel as also the learned counsel for Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Sri R.N. Shukla, learned counsel representing the respondent No.5 have submitted that though in the Government Order dated 01.07.2000, daughter-in-law of the Gram Pradhan has not been mentioned to be prohibited for being selected to the post of Shiksha Mitra, however, in case the Government Order dated 01.07.2000 is given proper interpretation, daughter-in-law would be included in the expression 'near relatives' and accordingly, in absence of denial of the fact that appellant/petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the then Gram Pradhan, her appointment could not have been made. On the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel representing for respondents have opposed the special appeal and has prayed that the special appeal be dismissed at its threshold. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the record available before us on this special appeal. 8. The sole question for consideration in this case is as to whether the daughter-in-law of the Gram Pradhan was prohibited to be selected as Shiksha Mitra in terms of the provisions contained in Government Order dated 11.07.2000. The relevant portion of the said Government Order dated 1.07.2000 is extracted herein below:- ^^f'k{kk lfefr ds lHkkifr o lfpo ds fudV laca/kh dk p;u f'k{kk fe= ds :i esa ugha fd;k tk;sxkA lacaf/k;ksa dk rkRi;Z firk] nknk] llqj ¼fi= ,oa ek= laca/kh½] iq=] ikS=] nkekn] HkkbZ] cgu] ifr] iRuh] iq=h rFkk eka ls gSA** 9. If we translate the aforesaid extract of the Government Order dated 01.07.2000 in english, the same shall be as follows:- "The near relatives of the Chairman of Shiksha Samiti and its Secretary, shall not be selected as Shiksha Mitra. Relatives means father, grandfather, father-in-law (both on paternal and maternal side), son, grandson, son-in- law, brother, sister, husband, wife, daughter and mother." 10. Thus 'daughter-in-law' is expressly not barred for being selected as Shiksha Mitra in the Government Order dated 01.07.2000. 11. Submission of learned counsel representing the respondents is that since 'son' has been included in the definition of near relatives in the Government Order dated 01.07.2000, as such, it is obvious that 'daughter-in-law' shall also be included. We cannot agree with the submission made by learned counsel for respondents in this regard. 12. From a perusal of the Government Order dated 01.07.2000 what we find is that the list of near relatives given in the said Government Order is exhaustive and not illustrative. Reference in this regard may be had to a judgement rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gyan Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2005 (2) E.S.C. (Allahabad) 1199. The Division Bench in the said case was confronted with the provisions contained in Rule 165(5)(4) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947. The Division Bench in the said case was confronted with the provisions contained in Rule 165(5)(4) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947. The explanation, which fell for consideration in the said case appended to the said Rule is extracted here in below:- "Explanation- The word "relation" in the proviso means father, grand-father, father-in-law, maternal or paternal uncle, son, grandson, son-in-law, brother, nephew, first cousin, brother-in-law, sister's husband, wife, wife's brother, son of nephew." 13. Interpreting the aforesaid explanation, the Division Bench in the case of Gyan Pratap Singh (supra) has clearly held that the explanation is not illustrative but it is exhaustive. The Court further observed that wording of the explanation indicates that the word 'relation' is restricted in its meaning to the particular relationships which are mentioned in the explanation and not otherwise. 14. If we compare the wordings of the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 01.07.2000, which is applicable for appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra to the explanation which has been discussed by the Division Bench in the case of Gyan Pratap Singh (supra), what we find is that the language applied in both the provisions are akin to each other. 15. Accordingly, we are of the clear opinion that list of the near relatives as available in the Government Order dated 01.07.2000 is not illustrative rather it is exhaustive and hence, no other relation other than which have been mentioned in the said Government Order can be included in the expression 'near relatives' denying appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra on this count alone, if the candidate concerned is otherwise eligible be appointed. 16. Sole reason in this case assigned by the BSA for denying or treating the appointment of the appellant/petitioner to be vitiated is that she is the daughter-in-law of the then Gram Pradhan who is Chairman of the Shiksha Samiti which conducted the selection. Daughter-in-law is not included expressly in the Government Order dated 01.07.2000 for denying the appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra and accordingly, we are of the clear opinion that stand taken by the respondents is not sustainable. 17. Daughter-in-law is not included expressly in the Government Order dated 01.07.2000 for denying the appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra and accordingly, we are of the clear opinion that stand taken by the respondents is not sustainable. 17. It has been lastly urged by learned counsel representing the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the learned State Counsel that the purpose of issuance of the Government Order dated 01.07.2000 was to prohibit the near relations from participating in the selection for the post of Shiksha Mitra and if the Government Order dated 01.07.2000 is accorded purposive interpretations, it would include daughter-in-law in the prohibited relation for being offered appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra. 18. The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for respondents, in our considered opinion, is not enable for the reason that the list of the relations as mentioned in the Government Order dated 01.07.2000 is exhaustive and not illustrative. Had it been illustrative, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents would have carried some weight. However, having held that the list of relations in the Government Order dated 01.07.2000 is exhaustive and not illustrative, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid submission of learned counsel representing the respondents should fall to ground. 19. In view of the discussions made and reasons given above, the special appeal deserves to be allowed. 20. Resultantly, the special appeal is allowed and the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.6102 of 2002 is hereby set aside. We also quash the orders which were impugned in the writ petitions, namely, two orders dated 11.10.2002 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur which were annexed as Annexure Nos.12 and 13 to the writ petition. 21. We have been informed at the Bar that the appellant has been continuously working and discharging the duties on the post of Shiksha Mitra ever since her selection and appointment, accordingly we direct that she shall continue to work and discharging her duties on the post of Shiksha Mitra unless there is any other legal impediment. 22. There will be no order as to costs.