Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.7.2005 whereby the Joint Director (Administration), Elementary Education, Rajasthan has rejected the claim of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment. Shri Ajay Tantia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the late husband of the Petitioner was serving the Respondents on the post of Class -IV employee and he died in harness on 22.6.2001. He left behind him, his widow and his two daughters respectively aged 20 years and 19 years and a son of 15 years. The Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment but it was denied because of certain complaints made by one Vijay Mathur who was friend of her husband alleging that the Petitioner has married to him and certificate of Arya Samaj was produced. It was argued that it was a fake certificate. Additionally, the learned Counsel argued that the Petitioner even then applied for annulment of this marriage to the Family Court, Ajmer and the Court by its judgment dated 7.10.2004 passed the decree of divorce. The Respondents have mechanically refused to grant her appointment on compassionate ground. The action of the Respondents be, therefore, declared illegal and unconstitutional.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that Vijay Mathur submitted the papers pertaining to his marriage with Petitioner. The Respondents, therefore, directed the District Education Officer, Elementary Education to examine, who upon enquiry submitted the report wherein the factum of marriage was proved. The subsequent decree of divorce has merely been obtained with a view to securing appointment. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the judgment of Family Court, I do not find any force in the argument of the Petitioner that Vijay Mathur manipulated the documents and produced the false certificate to show his marriage with the Petitioner. Even though, the marriage has been declared void by the leaned Family Court, there was no reason for the Petitioner to approach the family Court if the marriage had actually not been solemnised. Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown what steps did she take for any alleged offence of forgery or whether the Petitioner has registered any criminal case against Vijay Mathur. The decree of divorce appears to have been passed ex -parte, but nevertheless it admits of the possibility of Petitioner's having married subsequently to the death of Government servant concerned, Gordhan Singh. The action of the Respondents in refusing to grant compassionate appointment to the Petitioner cannot be said to be without justification. The writ petition being devoid of any merits is accordingly dismissed. ;