Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chandra Prakash Suwalka vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 29 March, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/008241] (1 of 5) [CW-3741/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3741/2019
Chandra Prakash Suwalka S/o Late Shri Jagdish Chandra
Suwalka, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Suwalka, House No. 1406,
Jeengaro Ka Mohalla, Sadar Bazaar, Mandal, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Personnel, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director (Elementary Education), Education
Department, Bikaner.
4. The District Collector, Bhilwara.
5. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Education Department, Bhilwara.
6. The Panchayat Elementary Education Officer Cum
Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Luhariya,
Tehsil- Mandal, District Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Hussain
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Bhawana Jangid
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
29/03/2023
1. Invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the
order/letter dated 17.11.2018 whereby, petitioner's request for
compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate
Appointment of Dependent of Deceased Government Servant
[2023/RJJD/008241] (2 of 5) [CW-3741/2019]
Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1996') has
been rejected.
2. Precisely narrated facts germane are that petitioner's late
father ( Shri Jagdish Chandra Suwalka) was working as Teacher
Grade-III in the respondent - Education Department, when he
passed away on 09.07.2018.
3. The petitioner being his son moved an application for
appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1996.
4. Petitioner's application came to be rejected by the
respondents vide letter/communication dated 17.11.2018 interalia
observing that petitioner's elder brother (Manish Kumar Suwalka)
is working in Postal Department under the Central Government.
5. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
petitioner's brother is living separately and petitioner receives no
financial or other support from his brother (Manish Kumar
Suwalka) and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for
compassionate appointment.
6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the
case of Tarun Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.16912/2017), decided on 02.02.2021 and a
judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 15.07.2014 in Writ
Petition No.10227/2011 (Annexure-10).
7. Mrs. Bhawana Jangid, learned counsel for the respondents,
on the other hand, submitted that Rule 5 of Rules of 1996 in
unambiguous terms provide that a person whose relatives are
working in any Department of Central Government or State
Government or any Corporation will not be entitled for
[2023/RJJD/008241] (3 of 5) [CW-3741/2019]
appointment and since petitioner's brother is working in the
Central Government, he cannot claim appointment under the
Rules of 1996.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
9. Concededly, petitioner's elder brother (Manish Kumar
Suwalka) is working in Postal Department, Government of India.
His entitlement to compassionate appointment is thus clearly
barred in view of the embargo contained in Rule 5 of the Rules of
1996.
10. According to this Court the fact as to whether the petitioner
is getting or not getting financial support from his brother, who is
in government service, is of hardly any relevance.
11. Rules of 1996 providing appointment to the deceased
employee's family members on compassionate ground is an
exception to the general rules of recruitment. Such being the
position, a person has to fall squarely within the bounds of eligible
persons defined under the rules.
12. Since, there is a clear inhibition on consideration of a
candidate whose family members are already in government job,
petitioner's case cannot be considered under the Rules of 1996.
13. So far as the judgment in the case of Tarun Kumar Jain
(supra) is concerned, the facts are entirely different. In said case,
the respondents denied the appointment as one of the petitioner's
sister was already in government job on the date of applying for
appointment.
14. Dealing with the peculiar facts of the case, a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court held that on the date of offering appointment,
[2023/RJJD/008241] (4 of 5) [CW-3741/2019]
such sister has already got married and therefore, embargo
contained in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 did not effect such
petitioner's case.
15. Since the facts in the case of Tarun Kumar Jain (supra) are
clearly distinguishable, such judgment is of no avail to the
petitioner.
16. Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court relied upon by
Mr. Hussain is of persuasive value. Since statutory provision
prevailing in Madhya Pradesh are neither given in the judgment
nor have they been produced before the Court, it is very difficult
to draw similarity. That apart, in the teeth of clear denial of
consideration in the event of a candidate's brother working in
Government Department, I am unable to persuade myself to
follow the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court.
17. Furthermore, in almost identical fact situation this Court has
recently dismissed writ petition filed by one Sushil Darji (SBCWP
No.5323/2022) decided on 09.01.2023. Relevant part of the
judgment read thus:
"5. A simple look at above referred Rule 5 of
the Rules of 1996 shows that a dependent of
deceased employee is not entitled for
appointment under the Rules of 1996, if any of
the dependent of the deceased Government
servant is already in State or Central
Government services.
6. Since the petitioner's brother (son of the
deceased employee) is already working as
Nursing Officer in AIIMS, Bhopal, the petitioner
cannot claim compassionate appointment in the
teeth of clear embargo given under Rule 5 of the
Rules of 1996.
7. The fact that petitioner's brother is residing
separately at Bhopal does not alter the legal
position emanating from the Rules of 1996.
[2023/RJJD/008241] (5 of 5) [CW-3741/2019]
8. The Rules of 1996 are exception to the
general rules of employment and, therefore, in
order to claim appointment a candidate has to
fall strictly within the four corners of the rules.
9. The petition is, therefore, dismissed."
18. Hence, there is no error or infirmity in the action of the
respondents, who have denied compassionate appointment to the
petitioner under the Rules of 1996.
19. The writ petition is dismissed.
20. Stay application and all other interlocutory applications also
stand disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
152-Arvind/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
