SHARMA, J. - (1.) IT is often said that death now-a-days, is too cheap. A pathetic, morbid question is asked every morning, every day, so who died today? If a Government servant dies, one of the dependents of his family is provided with the compassionate appointment to help the family in getting over the sudden tragedy. In order to regulate the recruitment of the dependants of deceased Government servants on compassionate grounds the Governor of Rajasthan enacted in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short the Rules of 1996 ). These Rules came into force from the date of their publication in the Rajasthan Rajpatra i. e. January 25, 1997. With effect from April 21, 1999, Rules 5 and 10 (3), (5) and (6) have been amended.
(2.) ALL the petitioners before me are the dependants of deceased Government servants but they have been denied appointment on compassionate grounds by the respondents. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents the petitioners have approached this court challenging the validity of Rule 5 and Rule 10 (3), (6) of the Rules of 1996. Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1996 defines `dependant' thus- `dependant' means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter, legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time and who were wholly dependant on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death. " Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 has been substituted in 1999 thus- " 5. Appointment subject to certain conditions-When a Government servant dies while in service one of his/her dependants may be considered for appointment in Government service subject to the condition that employment under these Rules shall not be admissible in cases where spouse or atleast one of the sons, unmarried daughters adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter, of the deceased government servant is already employed on regular basis under the Central/any State Government or statutory Board, Organisation/corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/any State Government at the time of death of the Government servant. Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself. " Before I proceed to deal with the submissions of the learned counsel I deem it necessary to incorporate the facts of each case in brief. Petitioner Roop Singh's father was Beldar. He died on December 8, 1996. Roop Singh submitted application seeking appointment on December 28, 1996 which was rejected on June 5, 1997 on the ground that his one brother is working in Border Security Force therefore he was not entitled to appointment in view of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996. The petitioner's contention is that he is not governed by Rules of 1996. Alternatively, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 5 and Rule 10 (6) of the Rules of 1996.
(3.) PETITIONER Manoj Singh Chauhan's father was Constable. He died on November 2, 1996. PETITIONER Manoj Singh submitted application on November 26, 1996 which was rejected on June 27, 1997 on the ground that his brother is working as Agriculture Supervisor. The petitioner's contention is that he is not governed by Rules of 1996. Alternatively, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 5 and Rule 10 (6) of the Rules of 1996. Petitioner Dilip Singh's father was UDC. He died on October 7, 1995. Petitioner submitted application on October 20, 1995 which was rejected on the ground that mother of the petitioner is in employment. The petitioner contends that he is not governed by rules of 1996. Alternatively, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 5 and Rule 10 (6) of the Rules of 1996. Petitioner Bhanu Kumar Sharma's father was a Teacher. He died on October 11, 1996. Application submitted on August 16, 1997 was rejected on January 3, 1997 on the ground that application was submitted after expiry of 45 days and in view of Rule 10 (3) of the Rules of 1996 it was barred by limitation. Validity of Rule 10 (3) of the Rules of 1996 has been challenged by the petitioner. ;