Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) The petitioner's husband was a stenographer in the Collectorate at Ghaziabad and died in harness on 4.2.1996. The petitioner alleged that she was the second wife of her husband. The first wife had died in the year 1993 and thereafter, the petitioner married her husband according to Hindu rituals and customs. Out of the first marriage of her husband, two children were born, namely, Km. Jyoti Gupta and Mukesh Gupta. Upon the death of here husband in 1996, the petitioner applied in June 1997 for an employment on compassionate ground under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules 1974 [hereinafter referred to as the Rules] The authorities by an order dated 12.3.1997 directed the petitioner to obtain a succession certificate so that her case for an employment on compassionate ground could be considered. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application before the Civil Judge for a grant of a succession certificate. These proceedings under Section 370 and 372 of the Indian Succession Act, were opposed by the children of the deceased. The Civil Judge, after hearing all the parties, granted a succession certificate dated 28.5.1999 holding that the petitioner and the two children were entitled each for 1/3rd share in the property of the deceased. The children of the deceased, being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, filed an appeal before the District Judge, through their maternal guardian, as they were minors. This appeal was also dismissed by a judgement dated 28.2.2001.
(2.) Armed with the succession certificate dated 28.5.1999, the petitioner applied again for an employment vide application dated 31.5.99 on which, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad issued an order dated 4.7.99, directing the Prabhari Adhikari to appoint the petitioner as a peon. Based on this order, the Prabhari Adhikari passed an order giving 1/3rd retirement benefits each to the petitioner and the two children. However, for reasons best known, the petitioner was not given an appointment letter. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition alleging that inspite of the order of the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, dated 4.7.99, the appointment letter has not been issued nor has she been allowed to join as a Class-IV employee and therefore, prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to give here an appointment on compassionate ground.
(3.) Km. Jyoti Gupta and Mukesh Gupta had filed an impleadment application and were impleaded as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the writ petition. In the counter affidavit, they submitted that the petitioner was not the legally wedded wife of their father and that the second marriage. The respondents submitted, that the petitioner was previously married to one Ram Niwas and that a decree of divorce was granted by a judgment dated 7.10.1993 of the Judge Family Court, Bareilly. From a perusal of this judgment, it transpires that Smt. Laxmi Devi, the petitioner had contracted the second marriage sometimes in the year 1992 with their father. The first wife of the deceased was alive in 1992, therefore, the second marriage of the petitioner with the deceased in 1992 was void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act.;