Chandra Dhari Singh,J. - (1.) The special Appeal is directed against order dated 14.09.2009 rendered in Writ Petition Service Single No.2186 of 1996 entitled "Km. Meera Khare vs. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari and others".
(2.) For ready reference, the impugned order is extracted here below:- "Heard Mr. D. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Badrul Hasan, learned Standing Counsel. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed in place of her unmarried sister Km. Prem Kumari Khare, who died before she enter into a wedlock leaving behind the petitioner on 10.07.1991. Thereafter, she moved an application for appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 which was processed and she was offered an appointment. The said appointment was subsequently cancelled by the order dated 23.03.1996. Being aggrieved the instant writ petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that the appointment was valid and made by the competent authority and the petitioner worked for more than 13 months. Before passing the impugned order, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The definition of family as given in Rule 2 (C) of 1974 Rules applies only to the cases of married Government Servants. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed as the sister of deceased employee is not covered within the definition of family as defined under the aforesaid Rules. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Rule 5 provides that if any Government Servant dies after 21.12.1973, a member of his family shall be given employment. According to the provisions of Rule 2(C) of the Rules, 'sister' is not covered within the definition of family. No interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed."
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jyotinjay Verma, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3.;