ORDER : 1. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow this writ petition and further be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24.10.2019 (Ann.6) and further direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Junior Assistant. Any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Cost of the petitioner be awarded in the favor of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the mother of petitioner Smt. Kavita Ahujon 20.12.2018. The petitioner (son of Deceased Government Servant), on 03.01.2019, has filed an application before the respondents for grant of compassionate appointment to him. The respondents considered the candidature of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, and accordingly, the Director, Secondary Education vide order dated 17.07.2019, has granted compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the post of Junior Assistant, and he was placed on probation; the name of the petitioner was mentioned in Sr. No. 24 in the concerned list. 2.1. Subsequently, in the year 2018, a, FIR bearing No.0185/2018 dated 04.11.2018 was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 286 IPC and Section 9 (B) of the Explosives Act, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was running a small patakha shop (Fire Crackers Shop), even after expiry of the valid licence. Thereafter, a Criminal Case was registered bearing no. 1285/2018 against the petitioner and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barr vide order dated 17.11.2019 imposed the monetary punishment of Rs. 2500/-upon the petitioner. As a consequence thereof, on the strength of the circular dated 15.07.2016 issued by the State Government, the petitioner was declared unfit for such appointment, vide order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the District Education Officer, Secondary Education. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 24.10.2019 was passed by the respondents without examining the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing to defend himself, prior to passing of the impugned order dated 24.10.2019. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 24.10.2019 was passed by the respondents without examining the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing to defend himself, prior to passing of the impugned order dated 24.10.2019. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforementioned monetary punishment was imposed upon the petitioner, in relation to a petty offence, while he himself admitted the charges levelled against him, in connection therewith; such a minor punishment makes it amply clear that the petitioner had not committed any offence, which could render him unfit for the appointment in question, as the said offence did not pertain to moral turpitude, heinous crime, and crime of grave nature, therefore the petitioner does not fall under the categories mentioned in the circular dated 15.07.2016. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that though in the order dated 17.11.2018, the learned Judicial Magistrate did not record the extension of the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioner, but the imposition of minor monetary punishment, as above, clearly reveals that such benefit was granted to the petitioner. 6. On other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner himself had not voluntarily disclosed the fact of Criminal Case against him, which was registered prior to submission of application by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner is a convicted person and as per the circular dated 15.07.2016 also, he acquired disqualification for the appointment in question. He also submits that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and the authority is under a legal obligation to consider the case strictly in accordance with the rules and procedure. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 9. This Court finds that the petitioner is the son of the deceased government servant and he filed the application for compassionate appointment before the respondents, being eligible as per the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Of Dependents Of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996; the respondents considered the said application and granted the compassionate appointment vide order dated 17.07.2019. 10. 9. This Court finds that the petitioner is the son of the deceased government servant and he filed the application for compassionate appointment before the respondents, being eligible as per the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Of Dependents Of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996; the respondents considered the said application and granted the compassionate appointment vide order dated 17.07.2019. 10. This Court further finds that the petitioner was imposed with the minor penalty under Section 286 IPC and Section 9 (B) of the Explosives Act, vide order dated 17..11.2018, as the petitioner himself admitted his guilt. 11. This Court also finds that the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan issued the guidelines/circular 15.07.2016 regarding the appointment of candidates bearing criminal antecedents. 11. This Court also finds that the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan issued the guidelines/circular 15.07.2016 regarding the appointment of candidates bearing criminal antecedents. Relevant portion of the Guidelines dated 15.07.2016 is reproduced as hereunder :- ^^1- ,sls izdj.k@fLFkfr;ka ftuesa fu;qfDr gsrq vik=rk ekuh tkuh pkfg, %& ;fn fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ ds fo:) fuEu esa ls fdlh Hkh izdkj ds vijk/k ds rgr izdj.k vUoh{kk/khu (under trial) gS vFkok nks"kflf) mijkar ltk gks pqdh gS] rks mls jkT; ds v/khu lsokvksa@inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq ik= ugha ekuk tkuk pkfg,% ¼1½ uSfrd vijk/k ;Fkk Ny] dwVjpuk] eRrk] cykRlax] fdlh efgyk dh yTtk Hkax djus ds vijk/k esa vUroZfyrrk (involvement) gksA ¼2½ Lokid vkS"kf/k vkSj eu% izHkkoh inkFkZ voS/k O;kikj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 ¼1988 dk vf/kfu;e la 26½ esa ;FkkifjHkkf"kr vos/k O;kikj esa vUroZfyrrk gksA ¼3½ vuSfrd O;kikj ¼fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e la- 104½ esa ;FkkifjHkkf"kr vuSfrd nqO;kZikj esa vUroZfyrrk gksA ¼4½ fu;ksftr fgalk ;k jkT; ds fo:) ,sls fdlh vijk/k esa vUroZfyrrk gks] tks Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e la- 45½ ds v/;k; 6 esa of.kZr gSaA ¼5½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds v/;k; 16 ,oa 17 esa ;Fkkof.kZr vijk/kksa esa varoZfyrrk gksA ¼6½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 147] 148 ¼cyok djuk½ ds vijk/k esa varoZfyrrk gksA ¼7½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 498 , ¼fL=;ksa ds izfr vkijkf/kd nqO;Zogkj&ngst½ ds vijk/k esa varoZfyrrk gksA ¼8½ vtk@vttk vf/kfu;e 1989 ds rgr vijk/k esa varoZfyrrk gksA ;gka ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr izdkj ds vijk/kksa ls lac/kfr dksbZ Hkh lwpuk tkucw>dj fNikus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dks Hkh fu;qfDr gsrq vik= ekuk tk,xkA ,sls izdj.k@fLFkfr;ka ftuesa vH;FkhZ dks fu;qfDr gsrq ik= ekuk tkuk pkfg, %& ¼1½ ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vkijkf/kd izdj.k ds vUos"k.k esa nks"kh ugha ik;k x;k gks rFkk vUos"k.kksijkUr ,Q-vkj- Lohd`r dh tk pqdh gksA ¼2½ ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fdlh vkijkf/kd izdj.k esa U;k;ky; }kjk nks"keqDr dj fn;k x;k gks] rFkk mfl izdj.k esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk vihy ugha djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tk pqdk gksA ¼3½ vH;fFkZ;ksa ds ,sls izdj.k ftuesa U;k;ky; }kjk ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 dk ykHk fn;k tkdj ifjoh{kk ij NksM+k x;k gksA ¼nks"kflf) fdlh fujgZrk ls xzLr ugha@jktdh ; lsok@Hkkoh thou ij fdlh izdkj dk foijhr izHkko ugha½A ¼4½ vH;fFkZ;ksa ds ,sls izdj.k ftuesa nks"kh djkj fn;k tkdj fd'kksj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 1¼1½ ¼½ ¼,½ dk ykHk iznku fd;k x;k gksA leLr fu;ksDrk vf/kdkjhx.k ls vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd os vH;fFkZ;ksa ds pfj=@iqfyl lR;kiu ds lac/k esa fu;qfDr ds le; lac/kr lsok fu;eksa ds izko/kkuksa ,oa bu fn'kk&funsZ'kksa ds izko/kkuksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, leqfpr fu.kZ; ysaxsA rFkk mDr izd`fr ds izdj.kksa dks u rks vuko';d :i ls yafcr j[ksaxsa vkSj u gh dkfeZd foHkkx dks lanfHkZr djsaxsA ,l- Mh- ¼HkkLdj ,- lkaor½ 'kklu lfpo** 12. As per the said guidelines, the petitioner does not fall in any of the categories mentioned in sub clauses (i) to (viii) under the head of disqualification for appointment. The guidelines also mentioned the categories and conditions regarding the eligibility of the candidates for appointment; clause (iii) of Qualification categories mentions that in those cases, where the Court has given the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, such candidates are eligible for appointment, and thus, cannot be rendered disqualified for appointment. 13. This Court, looking into the aforementioned Guidelines dated 15.07.2016, the Rules of 1996, the factual matrix of the present case and the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in particular, is inclined to allow the present petition. 14. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.10.2019 (Annexure-6), is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the post of Junior Assistant, with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.