Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) BY the judgment dated 18.5.2000 the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal1) directed the petitioner -Institution i.e. the employer to employ respondent Shri Dharampal Singhal as Class IV employee on compassionate ground in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependents of the Government Servant Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1975'). The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that Shri Nagarmal (father of respondent Shri Dharampal) died on 5.4.1995 while working as Lab Technician (Physics) with the petitioner -Institute. In the year 1998 Shri Dharampal preferred an application as per Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989') before the Tribunal claiming appointment on compassionate grounds as per the Rules of 1975.
(2.) A reply to the application was submitted by the respondents containing therein that the Rules of 1975 were having no application qua them and also that in view of Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Employee Rules, 1996 the Rules of 1975 stands repealed and, therefore, no consideration for appointment under the repealed Rules can be made. By negativating the stand taken by the petitioner, directions as noticed above were given by the Tribunal. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court while invoking extra -ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is: (1) the application preferred by Shri Dharampal under Section 21 of the Act of 1989 was not maintainable in view of the fact that he was not an employee of the petitioner -Institute. (2) the directions given by the Tribunal to provide appointment as per the provisions of Rules of 1975 is erroneous in view of the fact that the Rules aforesaid stood repealed and, therefore, those were not existing, and (3) even if it is assumed that the Rules of 1996 could have been applied, no appointment could have been accorded to the respondent as he submitted an application at a belated stage.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.;