PRAYAGRAJ, Aug. 26 -- The Allahabad high court has held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from the benefit of compassionate appointment. With this ruling, a division bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra set aside the decision of a single judge dated May 15, 2025 and allowed the special appeal filed by the appellant Chandani. The high court on August 12 directed the district basic education officer, Deoria, to decide afresh the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment following her father's death, after examining all relevant issues within eight weeks. Earlier, the district basic education officer, Deoria, had rejected her claim on the ground that since she was married, she could not make a claim for compassionate appointment after her father's death. "It is clarified that appellant would not be non-suited on the ground that she is a married daughter, as the said ground, as rightly held by the single judge, is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the division bench in Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs State of UP (2015)," the division bench added. In the present case, the appellant filed a writ petition before the single judge, challenging the order of district basic education officer dated December 27, 2016 by which the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment, after the death of her father Sampurnanand Pandey was rejected. Pandey was an assistant teacher at Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Gajhadwa, Bankata block, Bhatparrani tehsil, Deoria district. The rejection was on the ground that the appellant was a married daughter and, therefore, would not fall within the purview of the government order dated September 4, 2000, as amended by the government order dated July 2, 2004 The single judge accepted the contention on behalf of the appellant that married daughter could not be excluded from the benefit of compassionate appointment, in view of the division bench judgment of this court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of UP and others (2015). However, the writ petition was ultimately dismissed by the single judge, holding that the appellant could not bring on record any evidence to demonstrate that her husband was unemployed, and therefore, she was dependent upon her parents. The single judge had also held that almost 11 years had already expired since the date of the death of the appellant's father, therefore, at this belated stage, the claim is not liable to be considered. In the special appeal, the appellant's counsel submitted that the district basic education officer, Deoria had not rejected the claim of the appellant on the said grounds and therefore the single judge was not justified in examining the said issue....