Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the action of the State -respondents for not responding to his application claiming appointment on compassionate grounds for his father died while in service on 20th October, 2003, and therefore, has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s): - - "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allowed this writ petition and respondent be directed that giving the appointment to the petitioner on the pot of LDC or any other suitable post on the compassionate ground in place of his deceased father as per the provision of Rules. Any other order or relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) Briefly, the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein needs to be first noticed. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitting the fact that mother of the petitioner was working in the Women and Child Development Department and has been accorded regular appointment, contended that the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner with a symphathatic approach relaxing the bar as contained under Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996').
(3.) Indisputably, it is an admitted fact that the mother of the petitioner was in employment and has been accorded regular status as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A glance of the Rule 5 of the Rules, 1996, would reveal that the conditions precedent for eligibility to stake a claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, have been specifically incorporated in Rule 5 and 10 of the Rules of 1996.;