Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2841 (RAJ)

Kamal v. State of Rajasthan

2019-11-14

I.MAHANTY, MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2019
JUDGMENT : I. Mahanty, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed that Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 may be declared unconstitutional and ultra vires. A further relief has been sought to carry out necessary amendments in Rule 5 and to quash the order dated 26.08.2014 passed by the non-petitioner No. 2. 2. The facts in brief are that the application filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment on account of death of his father Mr. Kailash Harijan, who was an employee with the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur was rejected vide order dated 26.08.2014 on account that petitioner's mother Smt. Umrao Devi was employed as permanent employee i.e. Sweeper with the Nagar Nigam, Jaipur. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 restrains compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased government employee dying while in service if any of the family members including spouse of the deceased is in service either with the government or with any Corporation. 3. This factual aspect could not be disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; hence, we find no infirmity in the order impugned dated 26.08.2014. Moreover, the order dated 26.8.2014 was challenged by the petitioner by filling writ petition as late as on 13.11.2019 frustrating the object of compassionate appointment. 4. So far as the challenge to the vires of Rule 5 of the Rules 1996 is concerned, suffice it to observe that the object of providing compassionate appointment is to provide succor to the dependants of the deceased government employee and it cannot be made a gateway for back-door entry in the government services jumping the queue of the deserving unemployed candidates. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court in catena of cases that the compassionate appointment is not a regular mode of appointment; but, only in exceptional cases this should be restored to. Rule 5 has been enacted keeping in view the pious object. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.