Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jaikrishana Hirat vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 22 August, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023:RJ-JD:26476]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5858/2019
Jaikrishana Hirat S/o Late Shri Dhuleshwar Meena, Aged About
27 Years, Resident Of Kuvedia, Post Jayra, Tehsil- Khairwara,
District- Udaipur. (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Panchayatiraj, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Director (Elementary Education), Department Of
Education, Bikaner. (Rajasthan).
3. District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Udaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Bhawna Jangid
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
22/08/2023
1. The instant writ petition lays a challenge to the
communication/order dated 05.12.2018, sent by the Joint
Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner to the
petitioner and the consequential communication dated 17.12.2018
sent by the District Education Officer(HQ), Udaipur, whereby
petitioner's request for grant of appointment on compassionate
ground has been turned down on the ground that the petitioner is
not a legitimate child of the deceased Government servant.
2. The facts appertain are that petitioner's father Shri
Dhuleshwar Hirat (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased
[2023:RJ-JD:26476] (2 of 4) [CW-5858/2019]
Government servant") contracted first marriage with Shanta Devi,
whereafter he contracted second marriage with one Laxmi Devi.
3. No child was born from the first wedlock of the deceased
Govt. servant with Shanta Devi. The petitioner was born to his
second wife - Laxmi Devi.
4. Petitioner's father passed away while in harness. The
petitioner thus, moved an application for appointment on
compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Compassionate
Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant
Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996").
5. Petitioner's said application came to be rejected by the
respondents by way of order impugned, inter-alia, observing that
the petitioner is not a legitimate child of the deceased
Government servant (though an expression 'धर्मज' has been used,
which means legitimate child - धर्म-पत्नी से उत्पन्न प्रथम औरस पुत्र), while
they intended to write 'अधर्मज' (illegitimate).
6. Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
the respondents have illegally rejected petitioner's candidature
holding him to be an illegitimate child.
7. He argued that a child born out of the wedlock cannot be
classified into legitimate child or illegitimate child, irrespective of
the fact that the marriage/wedlock from which he/she was born
was valid or invalid. He added that a marriage may be illegal or
void but a child born out of such marriage is not illegitimate.
8. Mr. Singh submitted that the petitioner's application was
filed in accordance with law along with no-objection from his sister
and, therefore, the respondents could not have rejected the same.
He added that the definition of term 'dependent' under Rules of
[2023:RJ-JD:26476] (3 of 4) [CW-5858/2019]
1996 does not create any distinction on the basis of legitimacy or
illegitimacy.
9. In support of his contention aforesaid, learned counsel for
the petitioner relied upon the judgment dated 08.01.2018, passed
by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar
Charpota Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.7901/2015.
10. Dr. Bhawna Jangid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent- State is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid
position of facts and law.
11. While expressing the concern over the word used by the
respondents qua the petitioner (illegitimate child), this Court is of
the considered view that the respondents' action of denying
appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground is illegal,
arbitrary and violative of petitioner's fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
12. It would not be out of place to mention that Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar Vs. Union of India,
reported in, 2022 2 SCC online SC 229, has held that the policy of
compassionate appointment cannot discriminate against a person
by classifying deceased employee's children as legitimate or
illegitimate.
13. As an upshot of the discussion foregoing, the writ petition is
allowed.
14. The impugned communication dated 05.12.2018, sent by the
Joint Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner and the
consequential communication dated 17.12.2018 sent by the
[2023:RJ-JD:26476] (4 of 4) [CW-5858/2019]
District Education Officer(HQ), Udaipur to the petitioner are
hereby quashed and set aside.
15. The respondents are directed to accord appointment to the
petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today, if he is
otherwise found eligible.
16. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
41-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
