Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) AT the request of learned Counsel for the parties the writ petition was heard finally and is being disposed of.
(2.) PETITIONER preferred this writ petition challenging the order dt. 03.12.1998 (Annexure -4) passed by respondent No. 3, the District Education Officer (Elementary) Sawaimadhopur, thereby the respondent rejected the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment in place of his father late Shri Mohan Lal Jain, who died while in service on 12.09.1998, on the ground that Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, elder son of late Shri Mohan Lal Jain, is already in Government service. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that late Shri Mohan Lal Jain, father of the petitioner, died while in service on 12.09.1998 and, as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'), the petitioner moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of L.D.C. in the prescribed form (Annexure -3), but the same has wrongly been rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dt. 03.12.1998 (Annexure -4). The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the sole reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner is that Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, elder brother of the petitioner, is already in Government service, whereas Mukesh Kumar Jain was appointed purely on ad -hoc/temporary basis vide order dt. 02.11.1994 on the post of Junior Engineer in the Public Health and Engineering Department and his services were not regularized till the date of death of Mohan Lal i.e. 12.09.1998, whereas, as per Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, there is bar to get compassionate appointment to the effect that 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 unmarried daughter of the deceased Government servant is already employed on regular basis under the central/any State Government or Statutory Board, Organization/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/any State Government at the time of death of the Government servant. Admittedly, Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain was not in employment on regular basis, hence the application of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected by the respondents, as such, the writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be allowed and the respondents be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996. It is further contended that being aggrieved with the order dt. 03.12.1998, the petitioner moved a detailed representation (Annexure -5) clarifying the above position, but no heed was paid to that representation and the same remained pending with the respondents and, in these circumstances, the present writ petition was filed.
(3.) A notice to show cause was given to the respondents and, in response thereto, they filed written reply before this Court on 22.04.2004, and in Para 3 thereof, it has been contended that elder brother of the petitioner, Shri Mukesh Kumar, was appointed under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 and the said Rule does not provide for any further appointment to another son of the deceased Government servant, hence the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.;