JUDGMENT : (ANAND SHARMA, J.) 1. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 15.06.2000 issued by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer, whereby the petitioner has been denied compassionate appointment on account of pendency of criminal case, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition stating therein that his father Late Shri Haider Ali Shekh was holding of substantive post of Teacher in Govt. Primary School, Bhinai, unfortunately, he expired on 13.08.1999 while he was in service leaving behind his wife, one daughter and two sons. Petitioner contends that his father was sole bread earner in the family and therefore, his sudden death has put the entire family in grave financial crisis. Petitioner being eligible submitted an application on 04.09.1999 under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules of 1996’) for seeking compassionate appointment in place of deceased father, however, such application was rejected by Additional Chief Executive Officer, vide letter dated 15.06.2000 on the ground that criminal case registered vide FIR No. 33/99 registered at Police Station Bhinai for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 323, 307 and 427 of IPC was pending against the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner did not possess good antecedents, hence, he was not entitled for compassionate appointment. 3. Petitioner further states that for the aforesaid criminal case he was tried by competent criminal court and vide judgment dated 24.03.2005 although, he has been convicted for the charges under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 427 of IPC, yet the competent court has granted him benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, ‘the Act of 1958’) and has also been granted benefit of Section 12 of the aforesaid Act of 1958. Hence, the aforesaid letter/order dated 15.06.2000 issued by Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer, may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 4. Hence, the aforesaid letter/order dated 15.06.2000 issued by Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer, may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 4. The respondents filed the reply to the writ petition highlighting that while considering the application for compassionate appointment it was found that the criminal case was pending against the petitioner and he was not possessing good moral character and as per Rules the person who does not have good antecedents and moral character, is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Hence, the respondents have rightly rejected the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 5. I have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Prasad Meena Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. ( DBCWP No. 14693/2011 ) decided on 14.02.2014. Besides, he has also cited the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 2679/2024 decided on 20.02.2024. 7. As the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996, therefore, his eligibility was to be tested at the touch stone of the provisions of the Rules of 1996. Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1996 lays down that before a dependant is appointed, the appointing authority shall satisfy itself that he is otherwise fit for appointment in Government Service looking to his/her character and physical fitness. Thus, it was well within the rights of the respondents to examine the moral character of the petitioner before offering him compassionate appointment. In the instant case, on enquiry, it has been found by the respondents that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the appointing authority to take into consideration such fact for examining the application of the petitioner. 8. In the instant case, on enquiry, it has been found by the respondents that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the appointing authority to take into consideration such fact for examining the application of the petitioner. 8. Contention of the petitioner that in the aforesaid criminal case, subsequently on conclusion of the trial he has been granted benefit of Probation as well as benefits under Section 12 of the Act of 1958, is of no consequence for the reason that the consideration of character of the candidate was to be made on the date on which application was being considered by the competent authority. Admittedly, on the date of consideration of the application, a criminal case was pending against the petitioner. Hence, the application filed by the petitioner for appointment has rightly been rejected by the respondents. 9. In the judgment of Avtar Singh (supra) cited by the petitioner, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the verification of character and antecedents of the candidate is necessary to find out fitness of the incumbent and has also held that even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or dubious character. In the instant case, even if conclusion of trial of the petitioner in the above criminal case is taken into consideration (although such conclusion took place much later) even then it is a matter of fact that the petitioner was convicted for the charges lavelled against him. Hence, the aforesaid judgment of Avtar Singh (supra) is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. The other judgment of Shiv Prasad Meena (supra) is also of no help to the petitioner for the reason that on the date of consideration of application, a criminal case was pending against the petitioner. Judgment of Manoj Kumar (supra) is altogether different facts and different points. Hence, the same does not apply to the present facts of the case. 10. Judgment of Manoj Kumar (supra) is altogether different facts and different points. Hence, the same does not apply to the present facts of the case. 10. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit and substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, more so, in the light of the fact that compassionate appointment is always objected to give immediately relief to bereaved family and after such a lapse long time, even otherwise no purpose is likely to be fulfilled by seeking compassionate appointment. 11. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. 12. Stay application, pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.