ORDER : By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking following relief:- (i) That the appointment letter No. F.(1)(159)/Communication/Ind/PAD/Comp/Ind of the respondent No. 5 (Annexure-P14) may be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondents/department may be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of driver on compassionate grounds under Rules of 1996. (iii) Any other appropriate order or direction, which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. Facts in brief are that Shri Shyam Lal Soni, the father of the present petitioner and the respondent No. 5 Shri Praveen Soni was employed as an Office Assistant in the District Industry Centre, Bhilwara. Shri Shyam Lal Soni passed away on 25.1.2009 while he was in service of the respondent department. The petitioner's mother had passed away before Shri Shyam Lal Soni. The petitioner is the younger son of Shri Shyam Lal Soni and has two sisters and one elder brother, respondent No. 5 Shri Praveen Soni. At the time of the death of Shri Shyam Lal Soni, the petitioner's elder sister was already married and was residing with her husband at Beawar. Petitioner's unmarried sister Ms. Seema started residing with the present petitioner after the death of Shri Shyam Lal. Admittedly, Shri Praveen Soni, acquired graduation degree in Engineering and was working in different private companies at various places viz. Indore, Gurgaon, Jhansi, Bhopal etc. uptil the death of Shri Shyam Lal. Lastly, Shri Praveen was working as a Production Manager in a private concern at Indore. After the death of Shri Shyam Lal Soni, the petitioner filed an application under Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependent of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1996) on 26.2.2009 and claimed compassionate appointment in place of his father with a specific plea that he was wholly dependent on his father and had no independent source of income. It was mentioned in the application that the petitioner's unmarried sister Ms. Seema, who was also fully dependent on Shri Shyam Lal Soni had consented for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner in place of their father. It was mentioned in the application that the petitioner's unmarried sister Ms. Seema, who was also fully dependent on Shri Shyam Lal Soni had consented for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner in place of their father. The application also narrated that Shri Praveen Soni, the petitioner’s elder brother being an engineer, was married and was living separately from their father for the last 5 years and was working at Madhya Pradesh and that he was not dependent upon Shri Shyam Lal Soni at the time of his death. The petitioner prayed for being granted appointment on the post of driver because he was possessed of the requisite qualification for appointment on the said post and was also holding a valid driving licence. On 26.2.2009, the respondent No. 5 Shri Praveen Soni also moved an application (Annexure-2) claiming appointment for himself on compassionate basis in place of his late father on the post of Inspector (Weights and Measures). On 26.2.2009, the respondent No. 5 Shri Praveen Soni also moved an application (Annexure-2) claiming appointment for himself on compassionate basis in place of his late father on the post of Inspector (Weights and Measures). The language of the application (Annexure-2) has a material bearing for resolving the controversy at hand and is reproduced herein-below for the sake of convenience:- ^^lsok esa] Jheku~ egkizcU/kd ftyk m|ksx dsUnz] HkhyokM+k&jktLFkku fo"k; %& vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esaA lanHkZ %& vkids i= dzekad ,Q4 laLFkk@09@1712 fnukad 11 Qjojh 2009 izkFkhZ %& Jh izoh.k lksuh firk Jh Lo- Jh ';ke yky lksuh fuoklh HkhyokM+k egksn;th] mijksDr fo”k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd esjs firk Lo- Jh ';ke yky lksuh ¼Lo.kZdkj½ dk;kZy; lgk;d ds in ij ftyk m|ksx dsUnz HkhyokM+k esa dk;Zjr Fks ftudk LoxZokl fnukad 25-1-2009 lsok vof/k ds nkSjku gks x;k FkkA ;g fd esjh ekrk dk Hkh nsgkUr fnukad 10-5-2007 dks gks x;k gS rFkk eSa esjs ifjokj esa esjs firk ds ckn lcls cM+k iq= gWw rFkk ifjokj dk eqf[k;k gksus dh gSfl;r ls ifjokj dk lEiw.kZ Hkkj eq> izkFkhZ ij gh gS rFkk bl dkj.k eSa izkFkhZ vius firk Lo- Jh ';ke yky lksuh dh e`R;q ds i'pkr~ muds LFkku ij vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr ij dk;Z djus esa l{ke gksus ds dkj.k mDr fu;qDr gsrq vkosnu dj jgk g¡w ftl gsrq eq> izkFkhZ mDr vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr ns nh tkosaA mDr izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk esjs firk ds vU; vkfJrksa ds eq> izkFkhZ dks fu;qfDr fn;s tkus ckcr lgefr layXu gS tks fd lgh o lR; gSA HkhyokM+k fnukad 26-2-2009 ,lMh@& izkFkhZ izfrfyfi layXu%& ¼1½ 'kiFk i= ¼2½ lgefr i= ¼3½ pfj= izek.k i= ¼4½ ftyk m|ksx dsUnz i= ¼5½ ';ke yky lksuh e`R;q izek.k i= ¼6½ Lo- ljkst lksuh e`R;q izek.k i= ¼7½ izoh.k lksuh jk'ku dkMZ ¼8½ izoh.k lksuh iSu dkMZ rFkk MªkbZfoax ykblsal ¼9½ ewy fuoklh izek.k i= ¼10½ tkfr izek.k i= ¼11½ lsds.Mjh ekdZ'khV ¼12½ flfu;j lsd.Mjh ekdZ'khV ¼13½ ch-bZ- ¼eSdsfudy½ ekdZ'khV rFkk izksfotuy fMxzhA** It is relevant to mention here that in the proforma filled in by Shri Praveen Soni for seeking compassionate appointment, it was specifically mentioned that he as well as the petitioner Rupendra Soni had no source of income. Shri Praveen Soni also mentioned in his application that all the other dependents of his late father had given consent for his compassionate appointment in place of Shri Shyam Lal and that the consent documents were being annexed with the application form. Shri Praveen Soni also submitted an affidavit in support of his application seeking compassionate appointment, wherein also he mentioned that all the other dependents of his father had given consent for his appointment on compassionate basis. He further mentioned that he as well as all other dependents of his father were unemployed. On 2.3.2009, Shri Praveen Soni submitted an application (Annexure-3) to the Managing Director of the District Industries Centre, Bhilwara purporting to withdraw his claim for compassionate appointment and gave consent for appointment of Rupendra Soni, the petitioner, on compassionate basis. An affidavit (Annexure-4) dated 2.3.2009 was also sworn by Shri Praveen Soni to this effect. On 12.3.2009, Shri Praveen Soni withdrew the application as well as the consent given in favour of the petitioner vide application (Annexure-5) and claimed that the withdrawal application was filed under family pressure. He prayed for restoration of his claim for compassionate appointment. The General Manager of the District Industries Centre issued a letter dated 16.3.2009 to the petitioner as well as the respondent Shri Praveen Soni informing them that they both had applied for compassionate appointment in place of Shri Shyam Lal Soni but as per Rules, only one member of the family could be provided compassionate appointment and thus, both were directed to decide amongst themselves and inform, as to who should be preferred for compassionate appointment. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation (Annexure-7) in reply to the said notice setting out the grounds on which he claimed a preferential consideration for compassionate appointment as compared to Shri Praveen Soni. It was specifically mentioned in the representation that Shri Praveen Soni was living separately from their father and was having his own Ration Card and was never dependent on Shri Shyam Lal Soni as he was gainfully employed at Madhya Pradesh. It was further elaborated that as per the definition of a dependent provided in the Rules of 1996, only such person, who was dependent on the deceased government servant during his lifetime, was entitled for compassionate appointment. Documents regarding employment of Shri Praveen Soni in various private concerns at Madhya Pradesh were filed alongwith the representation. It was further elaborated that as per the definition of a dependent provided in the Rules of 1996, only such person, who was dependent on the deceased government servant during his lifetime, was entitled for compassionate appointment. Documents regarding employment of Shri Praveen Soni in various private concerns at Madhya Pradesh were filed alongwith the representation. Shri Praveen Soni also filed a reply to the notice dated 26.3.2009, a copy whereof has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-10. The contents of the reply (Annexure-10) are reproduced herein-below for the sake of ready reference:- ^^Lksok esa] egkizca/kd egksn; ftyk m|ksx dsUnz HkhyokM+k fo"k;%& Lo- ';ke yky lksuh ds vkfJrksa dh vuqdEik fu;qfDr ckcr~A lUnHkZ %& ftyk m|ksx dsUnz i= ds lUnHkZ esaA egksn;th] mijksDr fo"k; esa fuosnu gS Lo- ';ke yky lksuh vkids dk;kZy; esa dk;kZy; lgk;d ds in ij dk;Zjr FksA lsok dky ds nkSjku mudk fu/ku 25-1-2009 dks gks x;kA muds LFkku ij vuqdEik fu;qfDr ckcr muds vkfJrksa ds :i esa eSaus ¼izoh.k lksuh½ rFkk esjs NksVs HkkbZ ¼:isUnz lksuh½ us fu;qfDr ckcr izkFkZuk i= vkids le{k is'k fd;s gSA vki egksn; ls fuosnu gS fd esjk NksVk HkkbZ de f'kf{kr gS rFkk ifjokj ds izfr de ftEesnkj gSA eSa vki egksn; ls fuosnu djrk g¡w fd Jh :isUnz dk izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt dj Lo- ';ke yky lksuh ds LFkku ij eq>s ¼izoh.k lksuh½ dks vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr nh tkosA eSa vkils oknk djrk gw¡ eSa Lo- ';ke yky lksuh ds ifjokj dk Hkj.k iks"k.k csgrj <ax ls d:axk rFkk fdlh dks f'kdk;r dk ekSdk ugha nqaxkA d`i;k esjk izkFkZuk i= eatwj djsaA d`i;k ;ksX;rk dks ns[krs gq, eq>s ukSdjh nh tkosA l/kU;okn fnukad & 26-3-2009 Hkonh; layXu%& lgefr i= izoh.k lksuh iq= Lo- ';ke yky lksuh vkefy;ksa dh ckjh] HkhyokM+kA** From a bare perusal of the above letter/explanation, it is evident that Shri Praveen Soni did not even claim that he was dependent on Shri Shyam Lal Soni before his death and also did not controvert the fact that he was gainfully employed at the time when Shri Shyam Lal Soni passed away. The petitioner kept on pressing his plea for compassionate appointment by filing repeated applications before the higher ups of the Industries Department but ultimately, without adverting to the applications submitted by the petitioner, the Joint Director, Industries Department by order dated 6.8.2009 (Annexure-14), accepted the prayer of Shri Praveen Soni for compassionate appointment on the post of Inspector (Weights and Measures). The note-sheet, wherein the application filed by Shri Praveen Soni was processed, has been annexed with the instant writ petition. The note-sheet, wherein the application filed by Shri Praveen Soni was processed, has been annexed with the instant writ petition. A few of the relevant excerpts of the note-sheet (Annexure-15) are reproduced herein-below for ready reference:- 4- Jh izoh.k lksuh us ‘kiFk i= esa c;ku fd;k gS fd firk ds vkfJr ifjokj ds lnL;ksa esa ls dksbZ Hkh lnL; dsUnzh;@jkT; ljdkj ds dkuwuh cksMZ laxBu@fuxe tks iw.kZr;k Hkkxr% dsUnz@jkT; ljdkj ds LokfeRo ;k fu;a=.k esa gks] ds v/khu fu;fer vk/kkj ij fu;ksftr ugha gS esjs firkth ds vkfJr ifjokj esa lHkh lnL;ksa dh dqy ekfld vk; ‘kwU; gS rFkk eSa Hkh orZeku esa csjkstxkj gw¡ esjs ifjokj esa e`rd jkT; deZpkfj;ksa ds vkfJrksa dks vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr fu;e 1996 ds vUrxZr esjs firk ds LFkku ij fu;qfDr fn;s tkus gsrq lgefr iznku dh xbZ gSA esjh ekrk dk LoxZokl vkdfLed fu/ku fnukad 10-5-2007 dks gks pqdk gS lkFk gh ;g Hkh c;ku fd;k gS fd firk ds vkfJr ifjokj ds vU; lnL;ksa dk Hkj.k iks”k.k ;Fkksfpr :i ls d:axk ;fn Hkfo”; esa blesa vlQy ik;k x;k rks jkT; ljdkj esjh fu;qfDr lekIr dj ldsxh ¼i`”B 37&lh½A Jh izoh.k lksuh ds ,d iq= Jh {khfrt lksuh gSA 5- Jherh deyk lksuh iq=h LoxhZ; Jh fd'kuyky lksuh fuoklh HkhyokM+k us c;ku fd;k gS fd esjs HkkbZ LoxhZ; Jh ';ke yky lksuh vius Hkrhts Jh izoh.k lksuh dks vkfJr fu;eksa ds vUrxZr fu;qfDr nh tkrh gS rks eSa bldh lgefr iznku djrh gw¡A 6- Jherh lwjt lksuh iq=h Lo- Jh fd'kuyky lksuh us Hkh mDrkuqlkj 'kiFk i= esa c;ku fd;k gSA 7- Jh izoh.k lksuh fot;Jh bUnkSj dk;kZy; dk fjfyfoax ySVj ij layXu dj izLrqr fd;k gS ¼i`"B 66@lh½A 8- LoxhZ; Jh ';ke yky lksuh dk;kZy; lgk;d ds vkfJr iq= Jh :isUnz lksuh ,oa cM+s HkkbZ Jh izoh.k lksuh us vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr fu;e 1996 ds vUrxZr fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k pwafd vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr fu;eksa ds vUrxZr buesa ls ,d vkfJdks gh fu;qfDr fn;s tkus dk izko/kku gSA 9- d`i;k dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk 31 fnlEcj 1996 jktLFkku e`r ljdkjh deZpkfj;ksa ds vkfJrdksa dks vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr fu;e 1996 ds fcUnq la[;k 10¼2½ izfdz;k esa tgka e`r ljdkjh deZpkjh dk dksbZ thfor ifr ;k ifRu u gks] ogka e`r ljdkjh dks mldh vH;kfFkZrk ds fy, viuh lgefr nsuh gksxhA ijUrq ;g fd vkfJrksa esa ,d ls vf/kd ds }kjk fu;kstu pkgk tk;s rks foHkkxk/;{k lEiw.kZ ifjokj fo'ks"k dj vko';d lnL;ksa ds lexzfgr vkSj dY;k.k dks ns[krs gq, fdlh ,d p;u djsxkA vr% izdj.k vk;qDr egksn; ds voyksdukFkZ ,oa vkns'kkFkZ izLrqr gSA 14- d`i;k iSjk 13@,u dh ikyuk esa fuosnu gS fd Jh ';ke yky lksuh dh vkfJr iq=h lqJh lhek lksuh us vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr fu;e 1996 ds vUrxZr fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k fd bldh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk 8 oha ikl gSA bUgksaus prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ds fy, izLrqr fd;k gSA buds HkkbZ Jh izoh.k lksuh o Jh :isUnz lksuh us lqJh lhek lksuh ds ukSdjh okLrs vyx ls lgefr izLrqr ugha gSA HkkbZ;ksa us 'kiFk ij esa c;ku ugha fd;k gSA 15- Lo- Jh Hk;ke lksuh ds vkfJrksa esa ls fuEufyf[kr us fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k gSA 1- Jh izoh.k lksuh && cMs+ iq+= 2- Jh :isUnz lksuh && iq= 3- LkqJh lhek lksuh && iq=h dkfeZd ¼d-&2½ foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk 31 fnlEcj 1996 jktLFkku e`r ljdkjh deZpkfj;ksa ds vkfJrksa dks vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr fu;e 1996 ds fcUnq la[;k 10¼2½ izfdz;k esa tgka e`r ljdkjh deZpkjh dk dksbZ thfor ifr ;k ifRu u gks] ogka e`r ljdkjh deZpkjh dks mldh vH;fFkZrk ds fy, viuh lgefr nsuh gksxhA ijUrq ;g fd vkfJrksa esa ,d ls vf/kd ds }kjk fu;kstu pkgk tkos rks foHkkxk/;{k lEiw.kZ ifjokj fo'ks"k dj vko';d lnL;ksa ds lexzfgr vkSj dY;k.k dks ns[krs gq, fdlh ,d dk p;u djsxkA vr% izdj.k vk;qDr egksn; ds voyksdukFkZ ,oa vkns'kkFkZ izLrqr gSA 18. Elder son may be appointed. Thereafter, the order (Annexure-14) came to be passed whereby, Shri Praveen Soni was given compassionate appointment on the post of Inspector (Weights and Measures) in the respondent department. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the order (Annexure-14) dated 6.8.2009 and assailing the action of the respondents in accepting the application filed by the respondent No. 5 in preference to the petitioner for compassionate appointment on account of the death of Shri Shyam Lal and with a prayer for being granted compassionate appointment. Notices of the writ petition were served on all the respondents including the respondent No. 5 Shri Praveen Soni way-back in the year 2010. A reply was filed to the writ petition on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 4 (State) on 18.5.2011 justifying the decision to grant compassionate appointment to Shri Praveen Soni. As per the reply of the respondents No. 1 to 4, Shri Praveen Soni was unemployed at the time of death of his father and was better qualified than the petitioner and thus he was better placed to be offered compassionate appointment. It is relevant to note here that the specific case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition that Shri Praveen Soni was not a dependent of Shri Shyam Lal is not countered by the State in its reply. Despite service of notice in the year 2010, the respondent No. 5 Shri Praveen Soni chose to sit tight over the matter and did not file any reply to the writ petition for almost five years. Ultimately, a reply has been filed on his behalf in the year 2015 which was taken on record in the interest of justice. The averments made by the petitioner in Para 4 of the facts, Ground B of the writ petition and the reply submitted thereto by the respondents No. 1 to 4 and the respondent No. 5 are reproduced herein-below for the sake of convenience:- “Petitioner's pleadings: 4. That after the death of father of the petitioner, under Rule 10 of Rules of 1996, the petitioner filed an application on 26.2.2009 through General Manager-respondent No. 4 to Commissioner (respondent No. 3). It is stated in the application by the petitioner that petitioner was wholly dependent on his father and still there is no source of income. That after the death of father of the petitioner, under Rule 10 of Rules of 1996, the petitioner filed an application on 26.2.2009 through General Manager-respondent No. 4 to Commissioner (respondent No. 3). It is stated in the application by the petitioner that petitioner was wholly dependent on his father and still there is no source of income. It is also stated by him that his sister Miss Seema who is unmarried and was also fully dependent on her father. There is also consent of his sister for giving appointment to him on compassionate ground. It is also stated by him that his other bother Praveen Soni is married and was independent from last five years and doing job at M.P. He was not dependent on his father at the time of death of his father. The petitioner requested to give him appointment on compassionate grounds on the post of driver because he possesses the requisite qualifications and valid driving license. The driving license was also attached with the application form. The application form was supported by all the other relevant documents are produced herewith as Annexure-P1. B. That Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996 gives definition of the dependent of the deceased government servant. Rule 2 (c) says that the dependent means the spouse, son, unmarried or widow daughters, adopted son etc. and those person who were wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death. The word which has been used in the Rule 2(c) that a person must be wholly dependent on Government Servant. The petitioner was wholly dependent and nobody contravened this fact. In the family of the deceased Govt. servant Shyam Lal his wife was not alive and he had surviving two sons and two daughters. Two sons i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 5. Two daughters Mrs. Suman who is married and another daughter who is unmarried is Miss Seema. Mrs Suman cannot be covered under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996. The respondent No. 5 did his graduation in engineering in the year 2000 and after 2000 he was in service. In fact he was in service till death of his father. But just to get the appointment on compassionate grounds, he resigned from the private service of Production Manager, Vijayshree Paper Mills situated at Indore. The respondent No. 5 did his graduation in engineering in the year 2000 and after 2000 he was in service. In fact he was in service till death of his father. But just to get the appointment on compassionate grounds, he resigned from the private service of Production Manager, Vijayshree Paper Mills situated at Indore. When the petitioner got the documents under R.T.I. Act 2005, the petitioner got the copy of attestation form in which it was submitted by the respondent No. 5 that he was Production Manager from November 2008 to 9.1.2009 at Vijayshree Paper Mills, Indore. It is also stated in the same form that he was Production Manager from 1.6.2006 to October 2008 at Adarsh Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal. This shows that the respondent No. 5 was in employment since long time. The petitioner's father died on 25.1.2009. After this death the respondent No. 5 wanted to get appointment on compassionate grounds hence he managed his resignation letter dated 9.1.2009 otherwise he was in fact in service till death of his father. It has come into knowledge of the respondent department that as far as petitioner is concerned, admittedly he was wholly dependent on his father. It has also come into knowledge of the respondent department that respondent No. 5 did his graduation in engineering in the year 2000 and was working in different places till death of his father. It has also come into knowledge of the respondent department that Miss Seema was also wholly dependent. When the fact of the dependency of respondent No. 5 was in dispute, it was not justified on the part of the respondents department to reject the application of the petitioner and give appointment to the respondent No. 5. Hence, the appointment of the respondent No. 5 is bad in eye of law. Reply to Para No. 4 of Facts and Ground B by respondents No. 1 to 4 (State): 4. That the averments contained in para No. 4 of the writ petition are replied in the manner that whatever applications were received for grant of compassionate appointment, the same were forwarded to competent higher authorities at Head Office, Jaipur. After considering all relevant aspects of the matter, the Commissioner, Industries Department, Rajasthan issued an order granting compassionate appointment of 6.8.2009. That the averments contained in para No. 4 of the writ petition are replied in the manner that whatever applications were received for grant of compassionate appointment, the same were forwarded to competent higher authorities at Head Office, Jaipur. After considering all relevant aspects of the matter, the Commissioner, Industries Department, Rajasthan issued an order granting compassionate appointment of 6.8.2009. The order dated 6.8.2009 is in accordance with the law and the same does not require any interference by this Hon'ble Court. (B) That the averments contained in ground B of the writ petition are not admitted and hence denied. It is submitted that there were two applications, one application submitted by the petitioner and another submitted by the respondent No. 5 claiming compassionate appointment. According to Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 1996, anyone person can be granted compensate appointment. The respondent No. 5 was dependent on his father at the time of his death. Moreover, the respondent No. 5 was having better qualification then the petitioner and he being the eldest son of Shri Shyam Lal Soni, compassionate appointment was granted in his favour. At the time of death of father of petitioner and respondent No. 5, the respondent No. 5 was not in any employment. The order dated 6.8.2009 passed in favour of respondent No. 5 is legal and valid and the same does not require any interference by this Hon'ble Court. Reply to Para No. 4 of Facts and Ground B by respondent No. 5 (Praveen Soni): 4. That in reply to the averments contained in para 4 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioner is driver by profession and the father of respondent No. 5, during his lifetime, had purchased a Tata Indica Car (RJ-06-CA-1097) for the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was not dependent on his father. (B) That the averments contained in ground (B) of the writ petition are not admitted and hence denied. It is submitted that the respondent No. 5 who is the eldest son has been granted appointment in view of Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 1996. The father of the petitioner and answering respondent, has purchased a TATA Indica Car no RJ-06-CA-1097 for the petitioner and therefore, the petition was not dependent on his father. It is submitted that the respondent No. 5 who is the eldest son has been granted appointment in view of Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 1996. The father of the petitioner and answering respondent, has purchased a TATA Indica Car no RJ-06-CA-1097 for the petitioner and therefore, the petition was not dependent on his father. The younger sister of the respondent No. 5 also applied for appointment on compensation ground for the post of Class IV, however, considering the qualification of the respondent No. 5, he was given appointment. The answering respondent Nos. 5 secured 3rd position in all India at IIM Kanke Rachi in the BTC in Government Service.” Shri Nishant Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the provisions of the Rules of 1996, particularly Rule 2C read with Rule 5, only a dependent of the government servant can be considered for compassionate appointment in government service when the employee dies in harness. He submitted that the specific plea of the petitioner that Shri Praveen Soni was not dependent on Shri Shyam Lal was neither controverted by Shri Praveen Soni at any point of time when the matter was under consideration at the level of the respondent authorities nor has this fact been countered in the reply to the writ petition submitted by the respondents No. 1 to 4 and Shri Praveen Soni himself. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to para No. 5 of the facts and Ground B of the writ petition and the reply thereto and urged that the specific assertion made on behalf of the petitioner that Shri Praveen Soni was not dependent upon the deceased remains uncontroverted. He thus urged that the authorities acted with gross illegality and arbitrariness in affording compassionate appointment to Shri Praveen Soni vide order (Annexure-14) dated 6.8.2009 which as per him, was issued in total contravention of the mandatory provisions of the Rules of 1996. Shri Bora also urged that neither in the note-sheet (Annexure-15) nor while issuing the appointment order (Annexure-14) did the respondent authorities consider the aspect that Shri Praveen Soni was not a dependent of Shri Shyam Lal Soni. Shri Bora also urged that neither in the note-sheet (Annexure-15) nor while issuing the appointment order (Annexure-14) did the respondent authorities consider the aspect that Shri Praveen Soni was not a dependent of Shri Shyam Lal Soni. He, therefore, prayed that as the appointment of Shri Praveen Soni on compassionate basis in place of his father was totally dehors the mandatory requirement of the Rules of 1996, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner deserves to be afforded compassionate appointment in government service in place of his father. He further submitted that the application preferred by Shri Praveen Soni for compassionate appointment was based on fraudulent assertions. As per him, while filing the application (Annexure-2), Shri Praveen Soni specifically mentioned therein that the other dependents of his father had given consent for his appointment on compassionate ground and that the consent letters of the dependents were being filed alongwith the application. Shri Bora submitted that neither the petitioner nor the petitioner's sisters, who were the offsprings and the only possible dependents of Shri Shyam Lal Soni gave any consent for compassionate appointment of Shri Praveen Soni. The consent letters, which Shri Praveen Soni filed alongwith his application were signed by the sisters of Shri Shyam Lal Soni, who by no stretch of imagination, could be considered to be his dependents. Thus, he submitted that the proceedings of the note-sheet (Annexure-15), whereby the application filed by Shri Praveen Soni seeking compassionate appointment was accepted are tainted with extraneous considerations and as such, the impugned order (Annexure-14), which was passed on the basis of such tainted and biased proceedings is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and perverse and thus, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Per contra, Sarva Shri Manoj Bhandari and Ramesh Purohit, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 5 Shri Praveen Soni and Shri N.S. Rajpurohit, learned AGC, representing the respondents No. 1 to 4 vehemently attempted to support the impugned order. Shri Rajpurohit contended that the respondent authorities conducted a thorough inquiry before proceeding to accept the application submitted by Shri Praveen Soni seeking compassionate appointment in place of his father. Shri Rajpurohit contended that the respondent authorities conducted a thorough inquiry before proceeding to accept the application submitted by Shri Praveen Soni seeking compassionate appointment in place of his father. He submitted that all the relevant aspects of the matter were considered in light of the Rules and keeping in view the fact that Shri Praveen Soni was more qualified and that the welfare of the family would be better served by his appointment, his application was accepted in preference to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner's case that Shri Praveen Soni was not a dependent of his father is absolutely incorrect. However, when Shri Rajpurohit was asked to explain from the note-sheet as to whether the aspect regarding the dependency of Shri Praveen Soni on the employee Shri Shyam Lal Soni was ever considered by the authorities, Shri Rajpurohit candidly conceded that as per the entire note-sheet, this aspect was not adverted to by the authorities while processing the application. He submitted that the appointing authority's discretion was swayed by the fact that the petitioner was only 8th standard qualified, whereas the respondent No. 5 was an Engineering Graduate and thus, keeping the welfare of the family to be of paramount consideration, the application of Shri Praveen Soni was accepted. As per him, the discretion exercised by the authorities should not be lightly interfered with in the exercise of this Court’s writ jurisdiction. Shri Manoj Bhandari and Shri Ramesh Purohit, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 5 Shri Praveen Soni vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and urged that the welfare of the family is of paramount consideration when the prayer for compassionate appointment is being considered. They referred to the application (Annexure-R5/1) filed by Shri Praveen Soni to his employer Vijay Shri Paper Products Ltd. tendering his resignation from his job because his father was ailing as well as the relieving letter dated 9.1.2009, whereby the resignation was accepted. They urged that the respondent No. 5 was compelled to resign from his private job because his father Shri Shyam Lal Soni was hospitalized fighting for his life at the last stage of Cancer. They urged that the respondent No. 5 was compelled to resign from his private job because his father Shri Shyam Lal Soni was hospitalized fighting for his life at the last stage of Cancer. They submitted that if any interference is made in the matter at this belated stage, their client will be put to great hardship because he had resigned from his private job for attending to his ailing father and if now he is shunted out of the government job at this belated stage, then he will lose all sources of livelihood and his family will be put to great hardship. Upon a pertinent query being put, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 5 could not justify the assertions made in the application (Annexure-2) submitted by the respondent No. 5 for seeking compassionate appointment wherein it is mentioned that the other dependents of Shri Shyam Lal Soni had given consent for his appointment. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the material available on record. The relevant provisions of the Rules of 1996 are reproduced herein-below for the sake of ready reference:- “2(c). Dependent means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/ adopted unmarried daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time and who were wholly dependant on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death. 5. Appointment subject to certain condition:- (1) When a Government Servant dies while in service one of his/her dependants may be considered for appointment in Government Service subject to the condition 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, Organisation/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/any State Government at the time of death of the Government Servant. Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself. (2) Appointment under these rules shall be given on the condition that the person appointed on compassionate 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 dependant on the deceased Government servant. (2) Appointment under these rules shall be given on the condition that the person appointed on compassionate 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 dependant on the deceased Government servant. If subsequently, at any time, it is proved that such dependant family members are being neglected or are 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. 10(2). Where the deceased Government servant is not survived by a spouse the applications shall be made by one of the dependants of the deceased Government servant and other dependants shall have to give their consent for his/her candidature. Provided that inform than one of the dependants seek employment the Head of Department shall select one, keeping in view the overall and welfare of the entire family, particularly the minor members.” The dominant intention of the legislature evidently visible from the above provisions is that the applicant claiming compassionate appointment under the Rules must be a dependent of the deceased government servant. The petitioner all along represented to the authorities that the respondent No. 5 was a well qualified and well placed person, having procured a Graduation Degree in Engineering and was working in different private concerns at Madhya Pradesh and was not living with their father for the last five years. The petitioner claimed himself to be unemployed and totally dependent upon the deceased. In the application (Annexure-2) submitted for seeking compassionate appointment, Shri Praveen Soni did not even claim that he was a dependent of Shri Shyam Lal Soni. Of course in the proforma, Shri Praveen Soni mentioned that he was having zero income but it is admitted that just before the death of his father, Shri Praveen Soni was employed at a private concern named Vijay Shri Paper Products Limited, Indore. The respondent No. 5 Shri Praveen Soni has himself placed on record with his reply, document Annexure-R5/1 reflecting that he was resigning from the job for the purpose of attending to his ailing father. The respondent No. 5 Shri Praveen Soni has himself placed on record with his reply, document Annexure-R5/1 reflecting that he was resigning from the job for the purpose of attending to his ailing father. In this application, Shri Praveen Soni clearly mentioned that he was resigning from the job so that he could look-after the welfare of the family because chances of his father's survival were slender. It is very relevant to note here that Shri Praveen Soni, while resigning from the private job clearly took it upon himself to look-after the welfare of the family from his own sources. Apparently, at that point of time, i.e. on 7.1.2009, when the application was submitted, Shri Praveen Soni could not even have entertained a faintest belief that he would get a government job in place of his father. Despite that, he resigned from a well paying private job mentioning in the resignation letter that he had to look-after the welfare of the family. This leads to an irrefutable conclusion that Shri Praveen Soni was confident about his financial status that he could maintain the family despite resigning from his job and consequently, it is absolutely safe to assume that he definitely was not dependent upon his father. The fact that Shri Praveen Soni was working at Madhya Pradesh till 9.1.2009 also indicates that he was not living with his father and was having his own independent family, which he was sustaining with his own resources. In the reply filed on behalf of Shri Praveen Soni, it is asserted that he also acquired the degree of MBA from IIM Ranchi. From this, it can very well be assumed that getting a good placement would be much easier for Shri Praveen Soni as compared to the petitioner, who is just 8th standard qualified. The Rules of 1996 clearly stipulate that only such person, who was wholly dependent on the deceased government servant at the time of his death is entitled for appointment under the Rules. In this background, when the applications seeking compassionate appointment were filed by two sons of the deceased, it was incumbent upon the authorities to have considered the plea raised by the petitioner regarding only him and not Shri Praveen Soni, being dependent upon Shri Shyam Lal. In this background, when the applications seeking compassionate appointment were filed by two sons of the deceased, it was incumbent upon the authorities to have considered the plea raised by the petitioner regarding only him and not Shri Praveen Soni, being dependent upon Shri Shyam Lal. A passing reference was made to this issue in the note-sheet (Annexure-15) but the respondent No. 2 Managing Director, whilst directing appointment of the respondent No. 5 did not even refer to this important legal issue and by a single line eldest son may be appointed, accepted the prayer of Shri Praveen Soni for appointment in preference to the petitioner evidently in gross contravention of the Rules. The fact that Shri Praveen Soni's endeavour to procure compassionate appointment was based on false assertions is also reflected from the documents. While filing the application seeking compassionate appointment (Annexure-2), Shri Praveen Soni clearly mentioned that the other dependents of his father had given consent for his compassionate appointment. However, at the time of arguments, it was candidly conceded by learned AGC representing the respondents No. 1 to 4 that no such consent was given by either, the petitioner or his two sisters, who could possibly have been the only dependents of late Shri Shyam Lal Soni. In the note-sheet (Annexure-15), it is mentioned that Smt.Kamla Soni and Smt.Suraj Soni daughters of Kishan Lal Soni gave affidavits to the effect that they had no objection if Shri Praveen Soni was given appointment under the compassionate rules. These two ladies were the married sisters of the deceased and had no say whatsoever on the rival claims made by the sons of the deceased seeking compassionate appointment. In view of the above factual matrix, there is no escape from the conclusion that Shri Praveen Soni, in order to procure compassionate appointment, resorted to unfair means and the respondent authorities either fell into the trap laid by Shri Praveen Soni or even possibly connived with him and offered him appointment in total contravention of the Rules of 1996. It was mentioned in the order of appointment (Annexure-14) dated 6.8.2009 that Shri Praveen Soni is the son of Shri Shyam Lal Soni and was totally dependent on him. This fact was neither mentioned nor discussed in the proceedings as is evident from the note-sheet (Annexure-15). No such case was ever set up by Shri Praveen Soni himself. It was mentioned in the order of appointment (Annexure-14) dated 6.8.2009 that Shri Praveen Soni is the son of Shri Shyam Lal Soni and was totally dependent on him. This fact was neither mentioned nor discussed in the proceedings as is evident from the note-sheet (Annexure-15). No such case was ever set up by Shri Praveen Soni himself. The fact that Shri Praveen Soni did not file a reply to the writ petition and chose to sit over the matter for almost five years is of great significance and cannot be ignored. Upon going through the documents and pleadings of the parties, it is evident that neither at the time when the rival applications for compassionate appointment were being processed nor in the pleadings before this Court was there a denial of the petitioner’s specific assertion that Shri Praveen Soni was not a dependent of Shri Shyam Lal Soni at the time of his death or prior thereto. Thus, Shri Praveen Soni not being a dependent upon the deceased government employee, was definitely not entitled for compassionate appointment in place of his father Shri Shyam Lal under the Rules of 1996. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned order (Annexure-14) is grossly illegal, arbitrary and perverse and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned note-sheet (Annexure-15) and order (Annexure-14) dated 6.8.2009 are hereby declared illegal and are thus, quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to afford compassionate appointment to the petitioner under the Rules of 1996 on the appropriate post in place of his father late Shri Shyam Lal Soni. If required, the petitioner shall be extended appropriate age relaxation as well. A cost of Rs. 50,000/- is imposed on Shri Praveen Soni the respondent looking to his conduct. Upon realization of cost, the same shall be paid to the petitioner.