ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Mahendra Kumar Kuldeep challenging the communication dated 24.04.2012 issued by the respondents and seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him appointment on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector on compassionate ground. Father of the petitioner namely Shri Kana Ram Raiger while working as Welder Grade-I in Central Workshop, Jaipur died in harness on 22.11.2010 leaving behind widow namely Mangli Devi, four sons and three daughters. The petitioner is eldest son of the deceased employee. The respondent-Corporation vide order dated 25.06.2010 promulgated Appointment on Compassionate Ground to the Dependents of Deceased Employee of the R.S.R.T.C. Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations of 2010’) and the same were made effective with immediate effect. As per Regulation 5 of the Regulations of 2010, six posts were identified for being offered for appointment on compassionate ground namely Assistant Traffic Inspector; Sanganak; Deputy Store Inspector; Driver; Conductor; Artisan Grade III. As per Regulation 6 of the Regulations of 2010, a candidate must possess eligibility for appointment on such posts at the time of submitting application. These six posts were also included in the office memorandum, 2005 which was the basis for grant of compassionate appointment prior to promulgation of Regulations of 2010. The Office Memorandum was superseded by another order dated 16.06.2008 passed on the basis of Decision No. 19 of 2008 of the Board of Corporation whereby total seven posts were identified for compassionate appointment. Apart from above referred six posts, post of Junior Engineer, Grade B was also included. The petitioner, apart from possessing qualification of B.A., holds double degree of post graduation, i.e. M.A., LL.B. and Certificate of Bachelor of Journalism (Mass Communication). He submitted an application for appointment on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector on 13.12.2011. The qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector as laid down by the Board of Corporation vide decision No. 52/2011, approved on 08.07.2011 and notified vide order dated 29.08.2011, is degree of graduation from recognised university. It is argued by the petitioner that at the time when he submitted application for compassionate appointment, the eligibility qualification for the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector was degree of graduation and the petitioner was qualified for appointment on such post. It is argued by the petitioner that at the time when he submitted application for compassionate appointment, the eligibility qualification for the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector was degree of graduation and the petitioner was qualified for appointment on such post. However, the respondents with a view to defeating his claim have subsequently issued an order on 30.01.2012 whereby the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, Sanganak and Deputy Store Inspector were deleted from Regulation No. 5 of the Regulations of 2010. This order can at the best be considered as prospective in nature and cannot be applied retrospectively. Post of Assistant Traffic Inspector was included in Regulation No. 5 of the Regulations of 2010 when father of the petitioner died on 22.11.2010. The application seeking compassionate appointment was filed by the petitioner on 13.12.2011 on which date also the said post was included in the Regulation No. 5 of the Regulations of 2010. The case of the petitioner has to be therefore considered as per the rules applicable at that time. The petitioner has argued that the respondents have periodically issued different orders by excluding certain posts and some time thereafter again including such posts in the purview of Regulations of 2010 for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has placed on record subsequent order dated 30.07.2013 passed on the basis of Board of Corporation Decision No. 55 of 2013. This time again post of Assistant Traffic Inspector has been included in the purview of Regulation 5 of the Regulations of 2010 and as also the posts of Sanganak, Deputy Store Inspector and Class IV Employees have been included. The petitioner submits that the respondents have now provided MBA, BBA, PGDM as the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. Prescription of different qualification now by the respondents in the order dated 06.08.2013 cannot be an impediment for his appointment as the qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector at the time his father died and he submitted an application for appointment was degree of graduation which the petitioner fulfills. Even otherwise, the petitioner is highly qualified having two degrees of post graduation and LL.B apart from graduation degree. It is argued that he is passing through grave financial crisis. The petitioner is the eldest son of the deceased and has responsibility to maintain his mother, three younger brothers and three sisters. Even otherwise, the petitioner is highly qualified having two degrees of post graduation and LL.B apart from graduation degree. It is argued that he is passing through grave financial crisis. The petitioner is the eldest son of the deceased and has responsibility to maintain his mother, three younger brothers and three sisters. The petitioner is unemployed therefore; it is very difficult for him to maintain the family. It is argued that the respondents by their communication dated 16.03.2012 offered to petitioner appointment on the post of Driver, Conductor and Artisan Grade-III and required him to produce the copy of the licence for the post of driver and conductor and copy of diploma certificate in ITI for the post of Artisan Grade III. The petitioner had none of them, and therefore, could produce the same. The respondents on that basis rejected his application for compassionate appointment vide communication dated 24.04.2012. The petitioner has argued that under similar circumstances, one Umesh Nagar, whose father Shri Laxmi Narayan died on 09.10.2010, was given compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector vide order dated 02.12.2011. Father of the petitioner also died barely one month thereafter. The respondents have thus adopted method of pick and choose and have arbitrarily rejected application of the petitioner. The petitioner comes from weaker section of the society and has large responsibility to maintain big family consisting of a widow, four sons and three daughters of the deceased; therefore, the respondents ought to have accorded similar treatment to him. While Umesh Nagar who comes from upper caste has been granted compassionate appointment, the petitioner who belongs to Scheduled Caste, has been discriminated. Mr. H.R. Dhaka, Junior Law Officer, representative of the respondent-RSRTC has argued that appointment on compassionate ground is exception to the rules and therefore, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. No dependent of the deceased employee can claim compassionate appointment on a particularly post of his choice. The respondents offered to the petitioner appointment on the post of Driver, Conductor or Artisan Grade III. If the petitioner has not opted to accept appointment on any of these posts or does not possess the eligibility, the action of the respondents in rejecting his prayer cannot be said to be unjustified or without any reason. The respondents offered to the petitioner appointment on the post of Driver, Conductor or Artisan Grade III. If the petitioner has not opted to accept appointment on any of these posts or does not possess the eligibility, the action of the respondents in rejecting his prayer cannot be said to be unjustified or without any reason. The very purpose of giving compassionate appointment is to enable the family, whose sole bread earner has passed away, to overcome sudden financial crisis. Almost four years have gone since the death of petitioner’s father and the family of the deceased cannot be said to be suffering from any financial crisis. The post of Assistant Traffic Inspector was not included in the purview of compassionate appointment at the time when case of the petitioner was decided. It is argued that decision dated 18.01.2012/30.01.2012 however was made applicable to all the applications pending consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. Since, the application of the petitioner was pending, therefore, it cannot be said that such decision was being applied retrospectively. Now, subsequently, vide order dated 06.08.2013 though it has been included but the petitioner again does not fulfill the eligibility criteria as he does not possess the degree of MBA, BBA or PGDM. It is further contended that case of Umesh Nagar was entirely different. He was given appointment on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector on 02.12.2011 according to the rules and regulations prevalent at that time. The application of the petitioner was pending and remained undecided when such Regulations were amended by the Board of Corporation on 18.01.2012. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. Two undisputed facts are that post of Assistant Traffic Inspector was included in the Regulations of 2010 for appointment on compassionate ground when the father of the petitioner died and the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment. The post of Assistant Traffic Inspector has been included even now again when the present writ petition is being decided. The respondents have not denied the assertion of the petitioner that one Umesh Nagar, whose father Shri Laxmi Narayan died on 09.10.2010 was appointed on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector vide order dated 02.12.2011. Father of the petitioner died on 12.11.2010, just after a month from the death of father of Umesh Nagar. The respondents have not denied the assertion of the petitioner that one Umesh Nagar, whose father Shri Laxmi Narayan died on 09.10.2010 was appointed on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector vide order dated 02.12.2011. Father of the petitioner died on 12.11.2010, just after a month from the death of father of Umesh Nagar. While petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector was kept pending and when rules were changed, the same was rejected vide communication dated 24.04.2012. His application has been rejected relying upon the order dated 30.01.2012 passed on the basis of decision of the Board of Corporation No. 13 of 2012 taken on 18.01.2012 whereby seven posts which were earlier being offered for appointment on compassionate ground were reduced to only four and the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector was excluded. Application of the petitioner was rejected obviously because he failed to produce the licence for the post of Driver and Conductor. The petitioner also could not be appointed on the post of Artisan Grade III as he did not have the qualification of ITI Diploma. The respondents possibly cannot deny that the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector has again been included in Regulation 5 of Regulations of 2010 and is available for appointment on compassionate ground now pursuant to decision No. 55 of 2013 of the Board of Corporation dated 30.07.2013. But this time, the eligibility qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, which was earlier simple graduation, has been changed to MBA/BBA/PGDM. This Court is not inclined to accept the argument of the petitioner that the respondents have favourably accepted the request of Umesh Nagar and granted him compassionate appointed on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector only because he belongs to upper caste and declined such appointment to the petitioner for the reason of his belonging to Scheduled Caste. Yet the discrimination practiced against him by the respondents is writ large from their conduct. Father of Umesh Nagar dies on 09.10.2010 and he was appointed on 02.12.2011. And the father of the petitioner died only one month thereafter on 22.11.2010. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 13.12.2011, i.e. only 10 days after the appointment of Umesh Nagar. Father of Umesh Nagar dies on 09.10.2010 and he was appointed on 02.12.2011. And the father of the petitioner died only one month thereafter on 22.11.2010. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 13.12.2011, i.e. only 10 days after the appointment of Umesh Nagar. There was no reason for the respondents for not dealing with the application of the petitioner under the rules applicable at that time. Application of the petitioner has been rejected relying on the decision of the Board of the Corporation dated 18.01.2012. The rules applicable at the time of submission of the application by the petitioner should have been applied and now when the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector has again been included for the purpose of compassionate appointment, the respondents cannot be permitted to refuse consideration of the petitioner on the basis of qualification held by him at the time he originally submitted application. In the peculiar facts of this case, the same qualification which was prevalent at the time of submission of application by the petitioner shall be applicable. However, in the case of any other candidate, who has submitted application for compassionate appointment after 06.08.2013 when the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector was again included in Regulation 5 of the Regulations of 2010, new qualification prescribed by the respondents namely MBA/BBA/PGDM shall apply. The act of the respondents, is, therefore, declared to be illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In view of above discussion, writ petition deserves to succeed and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and grant him compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector within two months from the date of submission of copy of this order before them.