Om Pati vs State and Others

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking direction to the respondents to provide appointment on compassionate ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner''s husband died while working on the post of teacher on 20.10.1997. An application was moved by the petitioner to provide appointment on compassionate ground but respondents denied appointment on the ground that the petitioner is not possessing requisite qualification for the post of Class IV employee so also on the ground that no vacancy of class IV was in existence.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that denial of appointment to the petitioner on the ground of not possessing requisite qualification to be appointed on the post of Class IV is illegal because as per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 277 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, there is specific provision that although the appointment is to be made as per the qualification but the rules made by the Government and amended from time to time in this behalf shall be applicable to provide appointment on compassionate ground.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rules known as Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules of 1996") were promulgated by the State Government in which a provision was incorporated to grant relaxation in educational qualification for appointment in Rule 7(2) of the Rules of 1996 whereby it was provided that While being considered for appointment to Class-IV Service, the requirement of educational qualification for the post shall be dispensed with. Meaning thereby, a relaxation in educational qualification was granted for appointment in Class IV Service, therefore, the denial of appointment to the petitioner was totally illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on the aforesaid ground the petitioner is very much entitled for appointment on compassionate ground as her husband was died while working on the post of Teacher.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, qualification for the post of Class IV service is 5th class whereas the petitioner is an illiterate lady, not possessing the required educational qualification as per rules, therefore, her candidature was not considered for appointment on the post of Class IV. Further, it is submitted that at the relevant point of time, no vacancy of Class IV was in existence, therefore the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, this writ petition may kindly be dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the sub-rule (2) of Rule 277 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 which reads as under:-

"(2) Rules made by the Government and amended from time to time in this behalf shall be applicable to such employees also."

Similarly, I have also perused the Rule 7(2) of the Rules of 1996 which reads as under:-

"While being considered for appointment to Class-IV Service, the requirement of educational qualification for the post shall be dispensed with."

Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner Shri Ram Kumar was working on the post of teacher and after his death, an application was moved by the petitioner for providing appointment on the post of Class IV. But appointment was denied solely on the ground that the petitioner is not possessing required educational qualification for the post of Class IV.

In my opinion, denial of appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner is totally unfounded because Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 277 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 says that rules made by the Government and amended from time to time in this behalf shall be applicable to such employees also and in the Rules framed by the State Government known as known as Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, relaxation in the educational qualification was granted for appointment on the post of Class IV whereby it was specifically provided that while considering for appointment to Class-IV Service, the requirement of educational qualification for the post shall be dispensed with.

In view of above discussion, the denial of appointment to the petitioner is totally unconstitutional and illegal. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for providing appointment on the post of Class IV while giving relaxation in educational qualification as per Sub Rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 within a period of one month from the date of receiving certified copy of this order from the date of filing this writ petition but actual benefits shall be given from the date of this order.