Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.11.2019, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar, whereby his application for grant of compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of the Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996") has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have erred in rejecting petitioner's request for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that his brother Dilip Kumar is serving in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC).

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's brother Dilip Kumar is neither residing with the petitioner and his mother, nor is he supporting the family, and as such, petitioner, who was dependent upon his father Late Shri Nathuram Swami, was entitled for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996.

It is worthy to note that Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 clearly creates an embargo on the appointment, in case any of the sons/daughters, adopted sons/daughters of the deceased Government servant is in employment of the Government or in any Board, Corporation, which is partly or wholly under the control of the Government.

In view of inhibition in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment. Rules of compassionate appointment are in exception to the general process of recruitment. Hence, a candidate who seeks compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996, has to abide by the Rules of 1996 in its entirety.

The fact that petitioner's brother Dilip Kumar is not living with the petitioner and his family, is hardly of any relevance in the face of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996.

This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.