Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gopal Lal Rao vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 July, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 3) [CW-4577/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4577/2021
Gopal Lal Rao S/o Late Shri Ram Lal Rao, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident Of 7-E-7, Patel Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Medical And Family
Welfare, Through Its Principal Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Heath Medical And Family Welfare Services,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Additional Director (Administration), Heath And Medical
Services, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hansraj Nimbar
For Respondent(s) :
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
22/07/2021
(1) By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
the communication dated 24.12.2019 whereby petitioner has been
denied appointment on compassionate ground.
(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents have illegally rejected petitioner's application for
appointment on the ground that he has given birth to 3 rd child. It
is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no
prohibition for grant of appointment under Rajasthan
Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased
Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
(2 of 3) [CW-4577/2021]
Rules of 1996') and therefore, the action of the respondents is
contrary to law.
(3) This Court in the case of Shanker Lal Meena Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.7256/2021), decided on 20.7.2021
held as under:
"12. Argument of Mr. Vyas that the Rules of 1996
have overriding effect on all other Rules, has hardly
any substance and force.
13. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 7 enjoins upon an
Appointing Authority to satisfy itself that the
dependent is otherwise eligible for appointment.
14. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 reads thus :
"7. Qualifications :
(1) The dependent should possess the
qualification prescribed for the post under the
concerned service rules at the time of
appointment.
(2) While being considered for appointment to
Class-IV service the requirement of educational
qualification for the post shall be dispensed with.
(3) Before a dependent is appointed, the
Appointing Authority shall satisfy itself that
he/she is otherwise fit for appointment in
Government service looking to his/her character
and physical fitness and fulfillment of other
general conditions prescribed in the
concerned service rules.
15. In light of the express provisions contained in
sub-Rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996, this Court
is of the firm view that a dependent has to fulfill
general conditions prescribed in the relevant service
rules to be eligible for appointment.
16. Since the petitioner has given birth to third child
after the cut off date, he fails to satisfy general
conditions of the Rules of 2014.
17. No illegality has been committed by the
respondents in rejecting the petitioner's candidature
for appointment on compassionate ground under the
Rules of 1996.
18. There is no substance in the present writ
petition, hence, the same is dismissed."
(4) In light of the law laid down in the case of Shanker Lal
Meena (supra), the present writ petition is found devoid of
substance. The same is, hereby dismissed.
(3 of 3) [CW-4577/2021]
(5) The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
118-CPGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
