JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 4/85, vide its judgment dated 8.6.1987, has filed this writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as the "1998 Rules") and order dated 5.7.1990 passed by the respondent No. 2 dismissing the application of the petitioner for releasing him on parole, to attend his ailing wife. 2. According to the petitioner, he has undergone about 3 years and six months of sentence including remission On 26-6-1990, he came to know that his wife Smt. Asha Devi is critically ill, therefore, on 28-6-90 he made a representation to the Inspector General (Prisons) to leave him on parole, so that he may attend his ailing wife. According to him this was an emergent situation, which warranted his release on parole. The petitioner has stated that vide order No. 2541 dated 5.7.90, the Inspector General (Prisons) has dismissed his application. This order has not been served upon him. However, he has stated that the rejection of his application has been brought about by invoking the provisions of rule 14 of 1958 Rules. 3. According to the petitioner under the rules of 1958 there is a comprehensive scheme for release of prisoners on parole. Rule 3 of 1958 Rules provides for the form which could be submitted for release on parole. The application is required to be forwarded by the Superintendent of Jail to the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate may either reject or forward it to the Committee. The Committee has a power to release a prisoner on parole. Rule 9 of 1958 Rules specifies the parole period of different durations. Rule 9(a) provides that in emergent cases, the Superintendent of Jail can grant parole upto a period of 7 days subject to confirmation by the Inspector General (Prison) and the Inspector General (Prison) is empowered to grant parole for a period not exceeding 15 days. Rule 10(a) provides parole during emergent situation. Rule 14 contains classes of prisoners who are not eligible for parole in certain cases. 4. Rule 10(a) provides parole during emergent situation. Rule 14 contains classes of prisoners who are not eligible for parole in certain cases. 4. A notice of this writ petition was given to the learned Advocate General, who has appeared and argued the case on behalf of the respondents. 5. Shri Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the decision of the respondent No. 2 contained in the order dated 5.7.90 rejecting the request of the petitioner for being released on parole is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified. Shri Chauhan has submitted that exclusion of cases under Rule 14 from the preview of Rule 10 (a) is arbitrary and discriminatory. He has submitted that this exclusion of the cases under rule 14 has no nexus or relation with the object of grant of parole in emergent cases and, therefore, the provision imposing an embargo against grant of parole in emergent cases is unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Shri B.P. Agrawal, learned Advocate General on the other hand submitted that there is a justification for imposing more rigorous conditions for grant of parole in the cases falling under rule 14 of 1958 Rules. This has been done looking to the nature of offences for which a person is convicted and is sentenced to imprisonment. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy, we may reproduce rules 9, 10A and 14 of 1958 Rules : Rule 9-"Parole period-A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, (one fourth) of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on parole for 20 days including days of journey to home and back, and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during the 1st parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has been exceedingly well and if the prisoner's conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the (State Committee) for permanent release on parole on such conditions as deemed fit by the Superintendent Jail and the District Magistrate concerned; the Chief condition among them being that if the prisoner while on parole commits any offence or abates directly, or indirectly commission of any offence, he has to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence in addition to any sentence imposed upon him by reason of such an offence. In case the permanent release on parole is rejected, the prisoner will be eligible for release on parole for 40 days every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence." Rule 10-A (t) "Notwithstanding the provisions of rules (3, 4, 5) 9 and 10, in emergent cases, involving humanitarian considerations viz (1) oritical condition on account of illness of any close relations i.e. father, mother, wife, husband, children, brother or unmarried sister; (2) death of any such close relation; and (3) serious damages to life or property from any natural calamity. (ii) A copy of the order for release of prisoners on parole shall be endorsed to the next higher authority giving full circumstances under which parole had been allowed." Rule 14 "Ineligibility for release-The following classes of prisoners will ordinarily be not eligible for release on parole. (a) persons whose ordinary place of residence is outside the State of Rajasthan or who have been convicted by a Court Martial or a Court of another State; (b) Persons convicted under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; (c) Prisoners who have escaped from the Jail or Police Custody or attempted to escape ; (d) persons who have been convicted for offences under Sections 121 to 140, 216A, 302, 303, 311, 328, 332, 364, 386, 387, 388, 389, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 413, 455, 458, 459 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; unless they have undergone (one fourth) of the sentence including remission and the Superintendent of Jail recommends the case in consultation with the District Magistrate with special reasons therefor. In granting parole to prisoners sentenced u/s 302 IPC, the circumstances of the case under which the murder was committed such as murder committed for possession of land or over honour of women or as a result of family feuds shall be kept in view." So far as applicability of rules 9 and 10 (a) are concerned, there is no controversy between the parties. However, the dispute is regarding the application of rule 14. 8. We find from a perusal of rule 14 that classes of prisoners referred to in that rule will ordinarily not be eligible for release on parole unless they have undergone 1/4th of the sentence including remission and the Superintendent of Jail recommends the case in consultation with the District Magistrate with special reasons therefor. Rule 10A deals with special situations. The term 'ordinarily' used in Rule 16 has to be construed in harmony with the provisions contained in Rule 10A relating to emergeny cases. There is every justification for saying that ordinarily the persons who are convicted for offences specified in Rule 14 may not be given the benefit of parole without fulfilment of the condition of having undergone 1/4th of the sentence including remission. However, the term 'ordinarily' if construed in contradistinction to extraordinary situation, it is clear that there is no conflict between Rule 10A and Rule 14. Rule 10A deals with emergent cases involving humitarian considerations. This carves out an exception to other rules. Therefore, by reading two provisions together, we come to the conclusion that in emergent cases involving huminitarian considerations, also there is no bar for release of a prisoner before completion of 1/4th of sentence including remission. If these provisions are read harmoneously, we see no infirmity or voice of discrimination. Obviously, therefore, the argument of Shri Chaudhary that rule 14 violates article 14 of the Constitution deserves to be negatived. 9. We are of the considered opinion that if an application is made by a person who is a convict of the categories specified in Rule 14 of 1958 Rules and he satisfies the conditions specified in Rule 10A, he is entitled to be released on parole. 10. In this view of the matter the rejection of the application of the petitioner for release on parole by the respondent No. 2 on the ground of critical illness of his wife, is clearly illegal. 10. In this view of the matter the rejection of the application of the petitioner for release on parole by the respondent No. 2 on the ground of critical illness of his wife, is clearly illegal. The application of the petitioner must be decided on merits with reference to rule 10A of 1958 and if he satisfies the conditions, he may be released on parole. 11. In the result, we allow the writ petition and while upholding the constitutional validity of rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, we quash the order dated 5-7-1990 passed by the respondent No. 2 dismissing the application of the petitioner for release on parole on the ground of critical illness of his wife. We direct the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10A read with rule 14 within a period of three days of presentation of copy of this order.No costs.Petition Allowed. *******