Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—The unfortunate story of the petitioner is that she lost her mother on 28.9.1996 who was killed by none else but her husband, who also happens to be father of the petitioner and her another younger sister. Being minor at the time of death of their mother the petitioner and her younger sister remained under the guardianship of their maternal grand parents. After attaining majority, the petitioner submitted an application to claim appointment on compassionate grounds as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred it to as "the Rules of 1996") as her mother as the time of death was serving the State Government in the capacity of a Teacher. 2. The District Level Officers of the Department of Education forwarded application of the petitioner to the State Government with a recommendation to relax the time limit prescribed in the Rules to submit such application. The State Government instead of considering case of the petitioner on merits, instructed the Directorate of Education (Elementary) to further instruct the petitioner to avail consent of her father being surviving spouse of her late mother. 3. The Directorate vide letter dated 23.12.2009 made the State Government acquaint about the circumstances in which mother of the petitioner died, and also about conviction of her husband in relation to killing of the petitioner's mother. A request was also made by the Directorate to take appropriate decision by taking into consideration the facts so communicated. Surprisingly enough, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan returned the original application to the Directorate with following observations:- ^^mi;qZä fo"k;kUrxZr ,oa lUnfHkZr i= ds Øe esa Lo- Jherh thur vkjk ds vkfJr iq=h lqJh 'kSyk [kku dh vuqdEik fu;qfä izdj.k ewy gh layXu dj funsZ'kkuqlkj ys[k gS fd izkfFkZ;k dh ekrk dh gR;k ds tqeZ esa firk tsy esa ltk Hkqxrus dk eryc ;g ugha gS fd izkfFkZ;k mudh lgefr izkIr ugha dj ldrh gS vr% —i;k vkosnu i= ds Hkkx la[;k 3 dh iwrhZ dj izdj.k iqu% fHktokosa rkfd vfxze dk;Zokgh dj ldsaA** 4. The petitioner then preferred this petition for writ with a prayer to direct the respondents to allow her appointment on compassionate grounds without available consent from her father. 5. The petitioner then preferred this petition for writ with a prayer to direct the respondents to allow her appointment on compassionate grounds without available consent from her father. 5. This Court on 12.11.2010, after considering all facts of the case, issued notices to the respondents, the same were accepted by learned standing counsel for the Department of Education. The Court granted time to learned standing counsel to complete the instructions pertaining to the cause sought to be agitated. Subsequent thereto, on 20.12.2010 the District Education Officer (Elementary) requested the Additional Director (Administration), Elementary Education, to provide necessary instruction in the matter. The letter dated 20.12.2010 i.e. available on record as Annex.R/1, reads as under : ^^mijksä izklafxd fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd vkius jkT; ljdkj ds funsZ'kkuqlkj izkfFkZ;k dh ekrk dh gR;k ds tqeZ esa ltk dkV jgs izkfFkZ;k ds firk dh lgefr ds fy;s vkosnu i= ds Hkkx la[;k 3 dh iwfrZ djokdj iqu% fHktokus ds fy;s fy[kkA Jheku~ U;k;ky; }kjk izkfFkZ;k dh ukuh dks dkuwuh laj{kd fu;qä fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa tsy esa ltk dkV jgs firk dks izkfFkZ;k ls U;k;ky; }kjk vyx j[kk x;k gSA vr% vki Jheku~ ls vuqjks/k gS fd bl izdj.k esa Hkkx la[;k 3 dh iwfrZ izkfFkZ;k ds firk ¼vkthou dkjkokl ltk ;kirk½ ls U;k;ky; ds funsZ'kkuqlkj oS/k ugha gSA pwafd izkfFkZ;k us U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk la[;k 10444@2010 ds vUrxZr okn nk;j fd;k gS] ftldh izfr layXu gSA vc bl izdj.k dks iqu% izkfFkZ;k ds dkuwuh laj{kd }kjk 'kiFk i= ¼lgefr i=½ e; gLrk{kj vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq fHktok;k tk jgk gSA U;k;ky; ds izdj.k esa tokc nsus gsrq mfpr le; dh ekax dh tk jgh gSA —i;k le; ij izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k djkosa] ftlesa U;k;ky; esa tokc le; ij fn;k tk ldsA** 6. The contents of the letter makes it clear that the guardianship of the petitioner and her younger sister was given to their maternal grand parents by a judicial order, and their father was excluded from that. The District Education Officer also remitted the affidavit sworn in by the legal guardians of the petitioner to the effect that they desire for appointment to the petitioner. The District Education Officer also remitted the affidavit sworn in by the legal guardians of the petitioner to the effect that they desire for appointment to the petitioner. the high-ups of the Education Department instead of adopting a rational approach while considering claim of the petitioner, acted with quite a dogmatic attitude and rejected her claim under the letter dated 11.2.2011 (Annex.12), that reads as under:- ^^mi;qZä fo"k;kUrxZr Lo- Jherh thur vkjk ds vkfJr iq=h 'kSyk [kku ds vuqdEik fu;qfä izdj.k ds lEcU/k esa ys[k gS fd fu;ekuqlkj fu;qfä dk izFke vf/kdkj e`rd ds ifr@iRuh dks gS ;fn muesa ls dksbZ fu;qfä ugha pkgrk gS rks og nwljs vkfJr dks ;g vf/kdkj ns ldrk gSA gLrxr izdj.k esa e`rdk dk ifr Lo;a gR;kjk gS blfy, mls vuqdEik fu;qfä fu;eksa ds rgr fu;qfä fn;k tkuk uSfrdrk ds fo:) gSA tc vkosnd ds firk dks ukSdjh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS rks og vius okfj'k dks dSls ukSdjh fnyk ldrk gSA vr% mPp U;k;ky; esa ls vk'k; dk tokc is'k fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA tks Hkh fu.kZ; ekuuh; U;k;ky; djsxk ml ij fopkj fd;k tk ldsxkA** 7. A reply to the writ petition then was filed on behalf of the respondents with assertion that as per the Rules of 1996 on death of a Government Servant while in service, one of his/her dependent may be considered for appointment in government service. However, as per Rue 10 of the Rules of 1996, first right is given to surviving spouse and he/she may claim appointment of himself/herself or even for any other dependent. No application for appointment could have been given by any other dependent than the surviving spouse, even to claim appointment for any other dependent. According to the respondents, father of the petitioner being surviving spouse of the petitioner's mother was having right to move an application seeking appointment for himself or for any other dependent, including the petitioner. The petitioner, at her own could not have submit any application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondents also asserted that father of the petitioner, the surviving spouse of the deceased government servant, being convict of a serious offence, is not eligible to claim appointment even for himself, therefore, no appointment can be given to his children too. 8. Heard counsel for the parties. 9. The respondents also asserted that father of the petitioner, the surviving spouse of the deceased government servant, being convict of a serious offence, is not eligible to claim appointment even for himself, therefore, no appointment can be given to his children too. 8. Heard counsel for the parties. 9. As per Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, on death of a Government servant while in service one of his/her dependents may be considered for appointment in government service. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996 provides that on the death of a government servant the surviving spouse shall apply for appointment for self or for any other dependent. In view of sub-rule (1) aforesaid the right to claim appointment rests with surviving spouse of the deceased government servant. However, as per sub-rule (2), where the deceased government servant is not survived by a spouse, the application shall be made by one of the dependents of the deceased government servant and other dependents shall have to give their consent for his/her candidature. 10. In the instant matter as per the respondents, father of the petitioner is surviving spouse, therefore, as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996, an application for appointment on compassionate grounds could have been submitted by him only. the petitioner could have claimed appointment directly only in the event of not having surviving spouse of her mother. Precisely, the question under consideration before this Court is that what does the term "surviving" mean in present set of facts? 11. The Rules of 1996 creates a right for dependents of a deceased government servant to avail an appointment on compassionate grounds. The term "dependent" as defined under sub-rule (c) of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996 means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son and adopted unmarried daughter. As per Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 the dependent for being employed under the Rules of 1996, should possess the qualification prescribed for the post under the concerned service rules at the time of appointment. If a dependent is not having eligibility or is suffering from some disqualification under the service rules concerned, then he cannot claim appointment under the Rules of 1996. If a dependent is not having eligibility or is suffering from some disqualification under the service rules concerned, then he cannot claim appointment under the Rules of 1996. In other words, it can be said that a right for appointment under the Rules of 1996 survives, only if the dependent is having requisite eligibility and is not suffering from any disqualification under the relevant service rules. A spouse, if has lost the right to be considered for appointment under the Rules of 1996, then he/she cannot be treated as "surviving spouse" of a deceased government servant. Under the Rules of 1996, a right must be surviving to the dependent for claiming appointment. The spouse of deceased government servant is also a dependent as defined, thus, for exercising any authority as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 10, a right should be surviving with him for getting appointment. If such right is not surviving, then he/she is having no additional status being spouse, and he/she is also require to be treated at par with other dependents. Suffice to note that the term used in the statute is surviving spouse and not the living spouse. The authority under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 can be exercised by the spouse only if he/she is claiming appointment for himself or leaving his/her right to be employed for some other dependent. This right is given under the statute by recognizing the general concept that the spouse is the most effected person on the death of bread-earner and also the most suitable person to support the other dependents. if the spouse is having no right to claim appointment for himself/herself, then he/she is not leaving any of his/her right, thus, he/she looses the special status granted and stands on same pedestal with other dependents. As such his/her simple consent is sufficient. He/she is not suppose to initiate the process as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996. As such his/her simple consent is sufficient. He/she is not suppose to initiate the process as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996. The rights of the dependents including spouse are also sufficiently protected under sub-rule (2) of the Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, that reads as under: "5(2) Appointment under these rules shall be given on the condition that the person appointed on compassionated ground shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependent on the deceased Government servant and on furnishing an undertaking in writing that he/she shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependent on the deceased Government servant. If subsequently, at any time, it is proved that such dependent family members are being neglected or are not being not being maintained properly by him, the appointment may be terminated by the Appointing Authority after providing an opportunity to the compassionate appointee by way of issue of show cause notice asking him to explain why his services should not be terminated." 12. In these circumstances a dependent of a deceased government servant other than the spouse can exercise his right as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996. 13. The father of the petitioner being convicted for a criminal charge is not eligible to be considered for appointment under the Rules of 1996. As such, the right for appointment under the Rules of 1996 does not survive for him. The petitioner, therefore, rightly claimed appointment by submitting an application as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996. The respondents being aware of the fact about conviction of the husband of deceased government servant cannot insist upon the petitioner to get the application moved through her father. On coming down from the status of surviving spouse, father of the petitioner may have a right to tender consent for appointment to the petitioner, but that too is not available to him in present set of facts. An appointment under the Rules of 1996 is suppose to be given to a dependent by keeping in view overall interest and welfare of entire family (Rule 10(2)), but father of the petitioner acted absolutely against the interest and welfare of the entire family, therefore, he is not a person whose interest is to be watched. An appointment under the Rules of 1996 is suppose to be given to a dependent by keeping in view overall interest and welfare of entire family (Rule 10(2)), but father of the petitioner acted absolutely against the interest and welfare of the entire family, therefore, he is not a person whose interest is to be watched. He is not a person who can claim any protection as available to other dependents as per sub-=rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996. As such, no consent as per Rule 10(2) of the rules of 1996 is required to be obtained from him. Such a right can be available to a victim of circumstances, but certainly not to an accused for creating the unfortunate circumstances. 14. For the reasons given above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider claim of the petitioner for appointment under the Rules of 1996 without insisting for getting any consent from her father as desired under the communication impugned dated 20.10.2010 and reiterated under the communication dated 11.2.2011 (Annex.12). If the petitioner is found otherwise eligible, appointment be accorded to her as per provisions of the rules of 1996, to the post of Lower Division Clerk or on any other suitable post. the entire process of consideration including grant of appointment, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible, if required to be concluded on or before 10.10.2011. 15. A huge delay is causedby the respondents in considering case of thepetitioner, thus, she is declared entitled for a cost that shall be equivalent to the amount of one year basic pay of the post for which appointment be offered to her, commensurating her qualification. the cost should also be paid at the time of offering appointment as per the Rules of 1996.