Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - (1.) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer:- "1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 05.02.2016 Annex.P/7 may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents no. 1 may kindly be directed to consider the application of the petitioner for relaxation in the age and provide him compassionate appointment on the suitable post. 3. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. 4. Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner has been denied compassionate appointment on the ground that he crossed the age of 40 years, he made the application for compassionate appointment.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that in another case Govind Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7222/2014) decided on 02.05.2016 , the judgment reads as under:- "1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 24.07.2014 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur by which appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by invoking Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rules of 1996'). 2. Briefly put the facts, the father of the petitioner was killed while discharging his duties as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on 05.06.2002. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for being accorded compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996 on 12.07.2002. The matter was considered and it was found that the brother of the petitioner was already appointed as a Constable in the Police Department. However, it was also noted that there was a provision for relaxation of the Rules. Eventually, the matter was considered in the office of the Chief Minister and by an order dated 30.12.2002, the competent authorities decided to relax the Rules. Thereafter, it was decided to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Since appointment was not given to the petitioner even after the relaxation of the Rules, the petitioner approached this court by way of writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO.12035/2013, Govind Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and vide order dated 21.10.2013 , a direction was issued to the petitioner to move a necessary application for providing appointment on a lower post than what was sought (appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector). Pursuant to the order passed, the petitioner moved a necessary application seeking appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk and also moved a notice of demand dated 16.07.2014. The respondents declined to offer compassionate appointment vide order dated 24.07.2014 while invoking Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 to the effect that the brother of the petitioner was already in government service and had been appointed as a Constable with the Police Department. Aggrieved against the denial of appointment, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contends that the denial is illegal and arbitrary on the ground that the rules for appointment had already been relaxed in favour of the petitioner by the State vide its order dated 30.12.2002 and by denying him the appointment on compassionate ground, he has been put to unnecessary harassment. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents argues that the appointment cannot be afforded to the petitioner as Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 clearly specifies that when a government servant dies, one of the dependents may be considered for appointment in government service subject to the condition that the employment under these Rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or at least one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son, adopted daughter of the deceased government servant is already employed on regular basis and since one of the sons of the deceased employee was already in government service, the petitioner would not be entitled to any such appointment. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. 6. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner died while in service in 2002. The application for appointment on compassionate grounds was moved well within time and the authorities at that point of time did not offer him the appointment while relying on Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996. However, the matter was considered by the competent authorities and the Rules were relaxed under Rule 14 and it was decided that appointment would be afforded to the petitioner. This decision was taken as far back as in 2002 itself. However, despite the said relaxation in the Rules and decision taken to offer appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground, the same has not been offered to date by invoking Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 once again. This court fails to understand as to how appointment can be denied to the petitioner by invoking Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 without considering the facts that the said Rules had already been relaxed in favour of the petitioner by their own order dated 30.12.2002 and the subsequent decision taken thereon on 07.01.2003. The stand taken by the respondents in their reply is wholly unwarranted and not justifiable. 7. Resultantly, the above noted writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 24.07.2014 is hereby set aside with a direction to offer appointment in view of their own letters dated 30.12.2002 and the subsequent letter dated 07.01.2003 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The appointment be afforded to the petitioner as per the date of his entitlement with notional benefits. 8. No order as to costs.";