JUDGMENT : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Grievance of the petitioner, seeking compassionate appointment on the death of his father, who died in harness on 21.11.2007, stems out of an order dated 17.05.2023, vide which his request was declined by recalling his earlier appointment order dated 18.12.2019. The petitioner claims that as per the applicable compassionate appointment policy, he is entitled to the benefit thereof. 2. Relevant facts of the case as pleaded are as follows:- 2.1 Petitioner’s father was appointed as Teacher on 09.10.1986, but died in harness on 21.11.2007. Being one of the dependents, submitted an application on 18.12.2007 along with requisite documents and sought appointment on compassionate grounds. During pendency of his application, sister of the petitioner got selected for the post of Forester on 30.06.2016. Subsequently, petitioner’s sister got married on 17.04.2019. Petitioner’s case is that she does not thus fall within the category of dependents in view of definition of Rule 2 (c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1996’). It was thus that the competent authority vide office order dated 18.12.2019 made recommendation for compassionate appointment on the post of Class-IV employee and district Pratapgarh was also allotted to the petitioner and his name was reflected at S.No.31. 2.2 However, when petitioner approached the respondent no.4/DEO, Pratapgarh, to join on the said post, he was not allowed to join. Instead a copy of communication dated 13.03.2020 was provided to the petitioner vide which guidance was sought by respondent No.4 from respondent no.3/Director whether or not to permit the petitioner to join duty. 2.3 Petitioner then approached this Court by filing a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2003/2023 challenging the validity and propriety of the communication dated 13.03.2020. During the pendency of the said writ petition, vide impugned order dated 17.05.2023, earlier recommendation of compassionate appointment of the petitioner was cancalled relying upon a circular dated 08.04.2015. After passing of the order dated 17.05.2023 petitioner withdrew the said writ petition with liberty to file fresh. Hence the second foray of lis through the instant petition. 3. During the pendency of the said writ petition, vide impugned order dated 17.05.2023, earlier recommendation of compassionate appointment of the petitioner was cancalled relying upon a circular dated 08.04.2015. After passing of the order dated 17.05.2023 petitioner withdrew the said writ petition with liberty to file fresh. Hence the second foray of lis through the instant petition. 3. The defense taken by respondents in their reply is essentially that the affidavits submitted by the family members of a deceased government servant in support of application seeking compassionate appointment are false, to the extent that it was stated that there is no dependent of deceased in government service. 3.1. Reliance is also on Rule 5 of the 1996 Regulations which stipulates that appointments on compassionate grounds can only be in cases where the spouse or at least one dependent child of the deceased government servant is not employed in government service. In the case in hand, the unmarried daughter of the deceased government servant was in employment with the Forest Department since 2016, rendering the petitioner's claim as not maintainable. Despite this, the petitioner submitted an affidavit asserting that Ms. Sonam, the daughter, was a 'student' with no income, attempting to deceive the authorities and secure employment under the 1996 Regulations. 3.2. Further defense is that Ms. Sonam was indeed unmarried at the time of the pending application of the petitioner seeking appointment. Her marriage took place in April 2019. Consequently, the affidavits submitted by the petitioner on 22.11.2018 and 21.01.2019, sworn under oath, are/were deemed false. Therefore, the petitioner's attempt to gain appointment by withholding this crucial information rendered him ineligible for joining pursuant to the office order dated 18.12.2019. 4. With the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the competing contentions of the learned counsels and perused the case file. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously urges that the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to join on the post of Class-IV employee on compassionate ground is contrary to the provisions contained in the applicable Rules of 1996. He submits that father of the petitioner died while rendering his services and the petitioner being dependent submitted an application alongwith requisite documents before the respondents well within time. He submits that father of the petitioner died while rendering his services and the petitioner being dependent submitted an application alongwith requisite documents before the respondents well within time. He submits that after taking into consideration the said application, the respondents rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1996. He would further submit that the respondents wrongly relied upon the Circular dated 08.04.2015 to pass the impugned order dated 17.05.2023, which is thus liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would argue on the lines of the defense taken in the reply. He submits that petitioner’s father died on 21.11.2007. As per his service record, he was having two sons and two daughters. Elder daughter Ms. Sonam was appointed on the post of Forest Guard on 30.06.2016 when she was still unmarried. Her marriage was solemnized on 17.04.2019. Thus false affidavits, regarding none of the dependents of deceased Shri Man Singh being in government job, were submitted by the petitioner. He argues that the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the immediate hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. In this context he cites judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors. : (1994) 4 SCC 138 , wherein it is held that public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and on merits. The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment. It is merely an exception to the requirement of law keeping in view the fact of death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. 7. Having perused the impugned order, it transpires that the same is pivoted on the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996. Before proceeding further let us first have a look at the relevant Rule (5) of the Rules of 1996 as to what it envisages :- “Rule 5. Appointment subject to certain conditions. (1). 7. Having perused the impugned order, it transpires that the same is pivoted on the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996. Before proceeding further let us first have a look at the relevant Rule (5) of the Rules of 1996 as to what it envisages :- “Rule 5. Appointment subject to certain conditions. (1). When a Government servant dies while in service one of his/her dependents 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 or at the time of appointment of the dependent][ Substituted for “at the time of death of the government servant” vide Notification dated 08.04.2015.]. Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself.” 8. A perusal of the Rule ibid would show that it is designed to provide support to the family of a deceased government servant by offering employment. Intent is to provide financial stability and well-being of the family after the loss of the primary breadwinner. However, it places restrictions on who can be considered for employment. Pertinently, such restrictions which were prevalent as on the date of death, when the family needs immediate succor, have to be seen. As on the date of death i.e. 21.11.2007, Rule as it existed then specified a restriction that if any dependent, such as the spouse or at least one child, is already employed in government service or in a government-controlled organization, they are ineligible for this compassionate appointment. 9. Pertinently, the words “at the time of appointment of the dependent” did not exist on the rule book as the same were inserted vide a notification which came into effect as on 08.12.2015 i.e. after 8 years of the death of deceased herein, during which there was no impediment to proceed with the pending application of the petitioner. 9. Pertinently, the words “at the time of appointment of the dependent” did not exist on the rule book as the same were inserted vide a notification which came into effect as on 08.12.2015 i.e. after 8 years of the death of deceased herein, during which there was no impediment to proceed with the pending application of the petitioner. The delay to proceed with the pending application is attributable to the usual red tapism and lackadaisical approach of the respondents, being totally unmindful to the sudden penury to which the family of the deceased was struck with. In any case, the amendment notification ibid came into force w.e.f. 08.04.2015 and it cannot be made applicable retrospectively. 10. Furthermore, despite removal of all the deficiencies pointed out by the respondents, the application of the petitioner was kept pending for more than twelve years. Finally, even after recommendation was being made, respondent No.4, without there being any cause or complaint, on his own, vide his office order dated 18.12.2019 did not permit the petitioner to join. 11. Even otherwise, conceded position is that prior to passing of office order dated 18.12.2019, petitioner’s sister was already married. Being married daughter, she thus does not fall within the definition of dependents in terms of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996. It does appear that in his desperation to get appointment, petitioner gave the requisite information qua none of family member being in service as on the date of death his father. His candidature ought not to be adversely affected on that ground. Admittedly, at the time of death of petitioner’s father, none of the dependents of the deceased were in government service. 12. In view of my preceding discussion, the instant petition is allowed in terms of the prayer made therein. Impugned order dated 17.05.2023 is held to be not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. Resultantly, earlier office order dated 18.12.2019 is restored with consequences to follow. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join duty forthwith, on his approaching them with webprint of the instant order. For the period petitioner remained out of service he shall not be entitled to any financial benefits, but all other notional benefits, including seniority, et cetera, shall be accorded to him. 13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.