JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. The petitioner, who is a claimant under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER, seeks to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the existing vacancy of Office Attendant in the 5 th respondent-School or in any other appropriate post within a time fixed by this Court. 2. The petitioner states that her husband Mohanasundaram K.P. was working as High School Assistant (Social Studies) in the 5 th respondent-School. Mohanasundaram K.P. passed away on 17.08.2017 while in service. The petitioner is his legally wedded wife and they had no children in their wedlock. The petitioner was dependent on the deceased husband. 3. The petitioner being a Rule 51B claimant applied for compassionate appointment in the prescribed form, on 18.12.2017. The Manager of the School acknowledged the application and stated that as on that date, there was no suitable vacancy to accommodate the petitioner. The Manager assured that the petitioner's request will be considered as and when vacancy arises. 4. The petitioner states that she has passed SSLC. Her father passed away long ago and she has no brothers. The mother of the petitioner is aged. There was nobody to look after the petitioner upon the death of her husband. Therefore, the petitioner married Harinarayanan T. on 16.09.2018. After remarriage, the petitioner is not getting even family pension. 5. Though the petitioner requested the 5 th respondent for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds, the 5 th respondent did not respond positively. A vacancy of Office Attendant arose in the School on 31.03.2024. The petitioner again submitted an application. The 5 th respondent is, however, dragging the matter. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation to the District Educational Officer. The 2 nd respondent-Director General of Education informed the District Educational Officer as per Ext.P5 letter dated 03.12.2024 that remarriage is not a bar for getting compassionate appointment. 6. To the predicament of the petitioner, the 5 th respondent has now issued Ext.P6 letter dated 04.01.2025 stating that since the petitioner has remarried, she is not eligible to get compassionate appointment. The 5 th respondent further stated that the petitioner has not submitted application in the prescribed form and that she has not submitted a certificate showing that she is still dependent on her deceased husband Mohanasundaram. The petitioner seeks to set aside Ext.P6. 7. The 5 th respondent further stated that the petitioner has not submitted application in the prescribed form and that she has not submitted a certificate showing that she is still dependent on her deceased husband Mohanasundaram. The petitioner seeks to set aside Ext.P6. 7. The counsel for the petitioner urged that since the petitioner is a claimant under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER and since remarriage is not a disqualification for compassionate appointment, the 5 th respondent ought to have accommodated the petitioner in the existing vacancy. The 2 nd respondent has already clarified the legal position in Ext.P5. The 5 th respondent is therefore compellable to grant appointment to the petitioner. 8. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Nakeri Vasudevan Namboodiri v. State of Kerala [2007 (4) KLT SN 57 (C. No.63)] and urged that the word “dependent of the deceased” have been so repeated often in Government Orders which would indicate that the requirement that the applicant himself should be a dependent of the deceased is an essential eligibility condition under the Scheme. This Court in the afore judgment has held that an applicant for compassionate appointment should have been dependent of the deceased at the time of his/her death. 9. The counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shreejith v. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala [ 2012 (3) KLT 214 (SC)] wherein the Apex Court has held that an application for appointment cannot be rejected on the ground that the application was not in the prescribed form. The contention of the 5 th respondent that the petitioner has not submitted application for compassionate appointment in the prescribed form is therefore not sustainable. 10. The 4 th respondent filed a statement. The 4 th respondent stated that on the death of the petitioner's husband on 17.08.2017, the petitioner became a claimant of appointment in Karimbil High School, Kumbalappally as per Rule 51B Chapter XIVA KER. The appointment of Ramya P.V. as Office Attendant against the vacancy which arose on 03.06.2024 is kept in abeyance as per the interim order of this Court. 11. The 5 th respondent-Manager resisted the writ petition. The 5 th respondent stated that the petitioner was required to produce certain documents in support of her application for compassionate appointment. The appointment of Ramya P.V. as Office Attendant against the vacancy which arose on 03.06.2024 is kept in abeyance as per the interim order of this Court. 11. The 5 th respondent-Manager resisted the writ petition. The 5 th respondent stated that the petitioner was required to produce certain documents in support of her application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner did not submit any reply to Ext.R5(a) letter of the 5 th respondent. In the income certificate produced by the petitioner, the name of Harinarayanan T. is seen against the column of guardian. The petitioner has informed that she had married after one year of the death of her husband. The 5 th respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment on her remarriage. 12. The 5 th respondent stated that even under Rule 51B, the Government Orders relating to employment assistance to the dependents of government servants dying in harness shall mutatis mutandis apply in the matter of appointments. Since the petitioner got remarried on 16.09.2018, she lost her status of widow and consequently became ineligible for compassionate appointment. The petitioner has remarried a government employee. In the judgment in Sukumaran Nair v. State of Kerala and others [2004 KHC 1636] , this Court has held that appointment under Dying-in-Harness Scheme cannot be made long after the death of the employee. 13. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.7640 and 7641 of 2021 dated 11.12.2021 wherein the Apex Court has held that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but is to enable the family to tie over an immediate crisis which may result from the death of the employee. 14. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Santhosh N.C. v. State of Karnataka and others [ (2020) 7 SCC 617 ], the counsel for the 5 th respondent urged that a dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is, however, disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee. 15. He is, however, disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee. 15. The counsel for the 5 th respondent also cited the judgment in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. [2025 KHC OnLine 6133] and contended that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration and not the norms as applicable on the date of death. The latest Government Order GO(P) No.12/2023/P&ARD dated 14.07.2023 makes it abundantly clear that widow/widower, who remarries, is not entitled to compassionate appointment. 16. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent. 17. The petitioner's husband Mohanasundaram K.P. died on 17.08.2017 while working as HSA (Social Science) in the Karimbil High School managed by the 5 th respondent. The petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment on 18.12.2017. The petitioner had SSLC qualification. There was no vacancy suitable to appoint the petitioner when the application was submitted. By Ext.P3 communication, the 5 th respondent stated that there is no vacancy for the petitioner's qualification. 18. A vacancy suitable for the appointment of the petitioner arose in the School on 31.03.2024. When the petitioner contacted the 5 th respondent, the 5 th respondent took a stand that the petitioner is now not eligible for compassionate appointment as she got remarried. The 5 th respondent relied on GO(P) No.12/1999 wherein it was stated that a remarried widow/widower is not entitled to compassionate appointment. The 5 th respondent further stated that the petitioner failed to submit application in the prescribed form. 19. The contention of the 5 th respondent that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment as the application is not in the prescribed form is untenable. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the judgment in Shreejith (supra) has held that an application for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground that the application was not in the prescribed form. 20. The issue therefore is confined to the question whether the remarriage of the petitioner to a government employee would disentitle the petitioner compassionate appointment. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the judgment in Shreejith (supra) has held that an application for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground that the application was not in the prescribed form. 20. The issue therefore is confined to the question whether the remarriage of the petitioner to a government employee would disentitle the petitioner compassionate appointment. It is true that in the matter of appointment of government servants under compassionate grounds, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but is to enable the family to tide over an immediate crisis which may result from the death of the employee. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also held in the judgment in Santhosh N.C. (supra) that a dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application and that he/she is disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee. 21. However, in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner's husband was not a government employee. The petitioner's husband was a Teacher in a Government Aided School governed by the Kerala Education Act and the Rules. The petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment arises from a statutory provision. As far as staff of Government Aided Schools are concerned, compassionate appointment to dependents of deceased Aided School employees, is a valuable statutory right. 22. Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER reads as follows: 51B. The Manager shall give employment to a dependent of an Aide School Teacher dying in harness. Government Orders relating to employment assistance to the dependents of government servants dying in harness shall mutatis mutandis, apply in the matter of such appointments. It is amply clear from the language of Rule 51B that grant of employment to dependent of an Aided School Teacher dying in harness is a mandatory statutory requirement. 23. The petitioner has been denied compassionate appointment on the ground that she has remarried. The death of the petitioner's husband occurred on 17.08.2017. The petitioner was the only daughter of her parents. The petitioner's father had passed away. The petitioner had to take care of her aged mother. 23. The petitioner has been denied compassionate appointment on the ground that she has remarried. The death of the petitioner's husband occurred on 17.08.2017. The petitioner was the only daughter of her parents. The petitioner's father had passed away. The petitioner had to take care of her aged mother. The petitioner thought that in the prevailing Society, a widow cannot lead a peaceful life without a male support, especially when there is an aged mother to look after. The petitioner therefore remarried after one year of the demise of her husband. 24. In such circumstances, whether it will be legally justifiable to deny the petitioner the right accrued on her under Rule 51B KER, is the moot question. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the judgment in Shreejith (supra), in paragraph 24, has observed that it is true that marriage by itself does not disqualify the person concerned from seeking a compassionate appointment. The said judgment was delivered in a case falling under the Kerala Education Rules. 25. While in the case of government servants, the claim for compassionate appointment is based on executive instructions issued and amended by the Government from time to time, as far as Teachers in the Aided Schools in Kerala are concerned, compassionate appointment is a valuable statutory right. The language of Rule 51B does not give rise to any doubt that the Manager of an Aided School “shall give employment to a dependent of an Aided School Teacher dying in harness”. The right of dependents of a deceased Aided School Teacher is therefore a vested right. 26. It is true that the Government Orders relating to employment assistance to the dependents of government servants dying in harness shall mutatis mutandis, apply in the matter of such appointments. But, going by the language of the Rule, such Government Orders cannot be applied in a manner to defeat the very conferment of right under Rule 51B Chapter XIVA KER. 27. The petitioner was grief stricken when her husband passed away at a comparatively young age. The petitioner was a single girl child. The petitioner's father passed away. The petitioner had to look after her aged mother. Compassionate appointment was not given to the petitioner immediately after the demise of her husband, perhaps because of non-availability of suitable vacancy. After one year, the petitioner got remarried. The petitioner was a single girl child. The petitioner's father passed away. The petitioner had to look after her aged mother. Compassionate appointment was not given to the petitioner immediately after the demise of her husband, perhaps because of non-availability of suitable vacancy. After one year, the petitioner got remarried. A remarriage in such circumstances cannot take away the statutory right vested with the petitioner. If the petitioner is declined compassionate appointment in such circumstances, it would be a travesty of justice. The writ petition is therefore allowed. Ext.P6 order is set aside. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner in the existing or next arising vacancy in the School.