JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ, order or direction to the respondents to give suitable employment to the petitioner in any Government Department on the ground of her being a dependant of the deceased Government Servant. The petitioner's husband late Shri K.K. Dwivedi was in the employment in the Information and Public Relation Department. He met with an accident and died on 28.8.78. At the time of death Shri K.K. Dwivedi was posted as Dy.Director (Public Relation). At the time of his death Shri Dwivedi had four children namely Kumari Rachna Dwivedi, Kumari Kalpana Dwivedi, Shri Hamant Dwivedi and Shri Sharad Dwivedi. The petitioner who possesses qualification of Bachelor of Arts (University of Rajasthan, 1957), applied for being appointed as a dependant of her late husband Shri K.K. Dwivedi according to the provisions of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of the Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 1975 Rules'). The application of the petitioner was rejected by the Director Public Relation and she was communicated with this decision vide letter dated 21.9.88. She again made representation and office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Rajasthan forwarded the application of the petitioner. The Director, Information and Public Relations communicated a reply to the Officer on. Special Duty in the Chief Minister Secretariat vide letter dated 4.3.91. This letter was sent on the basis of the opinion of Department of Personnel. The Department of Personnel opined that at the time of death of Shri K.K. Dwivedi he was on deputation in the Cooperative Diary Drederation. His daughter Miss Rachna Dwivedi was appointed as Junior Accountant in the service of the Federation on 30.9.80 and his son was appointed on 5.10.82 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of appointment. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner none of the dependents of late Shri K.K. Dwivedi was given appointment in the service of the Rajasthan Cooperative Diary Federation in lieu of the service of Late Shri K.K. Dwivedi. His son and daughter were given appointment by direct recruitment. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner none of the dependents of late Shri K.K. Dwivedi was given appointment in the service of the Rajasthan Cooperative Diary Federation in lieu of the service of Late Shri K.K. Dwivedi. His son and daughter were given appointment by direct recruitment. In support of this assertion a copy of the letter dated 18.7.87 written by the Director (Administration) Rajasthan Cooperative Diary Federation addressed to the Directorate Information and Public Relation, Rajasthan Jaipur has been annexed as Annexure-4. The case of the petitioner is that she has a legal right to be appointed in the Government service in accordance with the provisions of 1975 rules' and that there is no justification for denial of appointment to her on a suitable post. Her case is that the action of the Government in refusing to give her employment as a dependant of Late Shri K.K. Dwivedi is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. 3. Under the directions of the Court, the petitioner has placed on record Annexure-6 to 9 to show that Kumari Rachna Dwivedi and Hamant Dwivedi were appointed in the service of the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation on the basis of their merit, which they secured at the competitive examination/selection made by the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation and they have not been given employment as a dependant of Late Shri K.K. Dwivedi. 4. No reply to the writ petition has been filed, although 3 opportunities were given to the respondents. On 26.11.91 it was made clear that if the respondents do not file reply by 3.12.91 it will be presumed that they do not want to contest the petition of facts. Despite that order no reply has been filed. 5. During pendency of the Writ petition it was brought to the notice of the Court that by an order dated 27.9.91 passed by the Director, Information and Public Relations the petitioner has been appointed as Lower Division Clerk. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that under the provisions of 1975 Rules, there could be no justification for denial of appointment of the petitioner on a suitable post in accordance with her qualifications. She has a legal right to be given the appointment on a suitable post. Initially respondents were in serious error in totally denying employment to the petitioner under 1975 rules'. She has a legal right to be given the appointment on a suitable post. Initially respondents were in serious error in totally denying employment to the petitioner under 1975 rules'. Now they have themselves realised that the petitioner had a right to be appointed under 1975 rules. Yet they have not given appointment to the petitioner in conformity with these rules. Learned Additional Government Advocate argued that the petitioner has now been given employment as LDC and therefore, shall (sic) does not have any right to be appointed on any other posts. The argument of the learned Government Additional Advocate is that the petitioner cannot claim a right to be appointed on a post in the State Service. His contention is that by virtue to rule 3 of 1975 rules a dependent of Government servant dying while in service cannot get appointment on a State Service posts. The only categories in which appointments can be given under 1975 rules are in Subordinate Service, in Ministerial Service or in Class IV Service and since the petitioner has already been given appointment as LDC, which falls in Ministerial service, she cannot claim appointment on a higher post merely because she possesses higher qualification. 7. In order to decide the controversy between the parties it will be useful to refer to the provisions contained under rules 3, 4 and 5 of 1975 rules. These rules are reproduced below: "3. Application of the rules-These rules shall be applicable for recruitment of the deceased Government Servants to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State except posts in major State services, i.e. the Rajasthan Administrative Service, the Rajasthan Police Service, the Rajasthan Forest Service, the Rajasthan Judicial Service and Rajasthan Accounts Service. 4. Overiding effect of these rules-These rules and any orders issued thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rule, regulations or orders in force at the commencement of these rules. 5. 4. Overiding effect of these rules-These rules and any orders issued thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rule, regulations or orders in force at the commencement of these rules. 5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased-In case of deceased Government servants' one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central/State Government or Statutory Board/Organisations/Corporations owned or controlled by the Central/State Government shall, on making an application for the purpose, be given a suitable employment in Government service without delay only against an existing vacancy, which is not within the purview of the State Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, provided such member fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post and is also otherwise qualified for Government service. In the event of the non-availability of a vacancy or any of the members of the family, being unqualified or minor is not found suitable or eligible for immediate employment, then such cases should be considered immediately on the availability of the post or any one of them becomes qualified or eligible for such employment under these Rules. Provided that recruitment may be made on posts which are within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, except the major State Services mentioned in rule 3 where the Appointing Authority is satisfied in consultation with the Department of Personnel and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission that a dependant of a deceased Government servant is qualified and suitable for appointment to such post". 8. An analysis of these rules shows that these rules have overriding effect vis-a-vis provisions contained in any other rule, regulation or orders in force at the time of commencement of these rules. On member of the family of a deceased Government servant, who is not already employed in the Central/State Government or Statutory Board/Organisations, Corporations owned or controlled by the Central/State Government has to be given suitable employment in Government service without delay against an existing vacancy on his/her making application for that purpose. For giving employment to one member of the family of the deceased Government servant normal recruitment rules can be relaxed by the competent authority provided such member fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post and is also otherwise qualified for Government service. For giving employment to one member of the family of the deceased Government servant normal recruitment rules can be relaxed by the competent authority provided such member fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post and is also otherwise qualified for Government service. If on account of non-availability of vacancy, appointment cannot be given immediately or if one member of the family of the deceased governments servant is not qualified or is minor or is not eligible for immediate employment, his/her case has to be considered immediately on the availability of the post or immediately on his/her becoming qualified or eligible for employment under these rules. However, he/she is not entitled to appointment on major State Service posts i.e. Rajasthan Administrative Derive, Rajasthan Police Service, Rajasthan Forests Service, Rajasthan Judicial Service and Rajasthan Accounts Service. Even against the posts coming within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, other than those falling in the category of major State Service which have been referred to in rule 3, appointment can be given if the appointing authority is satisfied in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Rajasthan Public Service Commission that a dependant of a deceased Government servant is qualified and suitable for appointment on such posts. It is, therefore, clear that only against the posts in 5 major services, appointments under 1975 rules cannot be given to a dependant of the deceased Government servant. Regarding other posts falling within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission appointment can be given provided appointing authority feels satisfied that the dependant of a deceased Government servant is qualified and suitable for appointment. For this purpose appointing authority is to consult the Department of Personnel and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the argument of the learned Additional Government Advocate, so widely formulated by him, that dependant of a deceased Government servant cannot get appointment on any State Service post. The rule making authority deliberately restricted the exception clause to 5 major State Services. It clearly permits appointment on other posts including State Service posts and even those falling within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The rule making authority deliberately restricted the exception clause to 5 major State Services. It clearly permits appointment on other posts including State Service posts and even those falling within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The only rider is that in case of the posts falling within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission the appointing authority must feel satisfied about the qualification and suitability of the dependant of deceased Government servant after consultation with the Department of Personnel and Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Clearly there is not a legal bar against the appointment on a State Service except the 5 major State Services. I have taken a similar view in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3171/91 Smt. Sashi Prabhu Swami v. State of Rajasthan decided on April 24,1991 . That was a case in which the petitioner's husband was holding post of Archoelogical Chemist at the time of his death. The petitioner fulfilled the conditions of eligibility for appointment as Archaeological Chemist. She was however denied appointment on the post of Archaeological Chemist on the basis of circular dated 1.4.89 issued by the Government in this regard. It was held that circular dated 1.4.89 issued by the Government has to be interpreted, as far as possible, consistently with the provisions of the statutory rules and there- fore, the circular cannot be read as imposing a legal bar against appointment on all State Service posts. It has been held in that case that only bar is against appointment on 5 State Service posts specified in rule 3 of 1975 rules. A direction was given by the Court for giving employment to the petitioner in that case on the post of Archaeological Chemist in accordance with 1975 rules. 9. In the light of the interpretation of the rules, it must be held that except in respect of 5 major State Service posts, dependant of deceased Government servant is entitled to be considered for appointment against all posts and he/she has a right to be appointed on a suitable post. However in respect of the posts falling within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission the appointing authority is to take a decision after consultation with the Department of Personnel and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. 10. However in respect of the posts falling within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission the appointing authority is to take a decision after consultation with the Department of Personnel and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. 10. The petitioner has been denied appointment on a State Service post on a clearly erroneous view of the provisions of the rules, 1975. She has been denied consideration for appointment on a suitable posts in terms of rule 5 of the 1975 rules and the reasons given by the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent's denial of this consideration are not legally sustainable. 11. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for employment on all posts except the posts in 5 major State Services specified in rule 3 of 1975 rules. It is further declared that the non- consideration of her case for appointment on a suitable post in accordance with rule 5 of 1975 rules is arbitrary and unjustified. The respondents are directed to consider her case for giving her appointment on a suitable post including State Service post in accordance with her qualifications and after consultation with DOP as well as RPSC. Her case must be decided by the appointing authority for appointment on a suitable posts in accordance with her qualification. This exercise must be completed within 4 months of the date of submission of copy of the order in the Department of Personnel. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******