CW 12193/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.12193/2009 Suman Singh Chouhan Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 23/10//09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Sunil Kr. Sharma, for petitioner Petitioner was appointed as untrained Teacher on compassionate ground vide order dt. 01/08/86 (Ann.1) and while in service, did B.Ed on 22/09/95 – in this view whereof, his grievance is that despite his appointment being a regular appointment, his candidature has not been considered for selection scale in terms of Government Circular. Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Ajay Sharma (2002(2) RLR 5) held ad infra: “2. In our opinion, it was not necessary to subject him to screening proviso (ii) under Rule 6(1A) of 1992 rules, he was recruited to the post under the rules of 1975 and the rules of 1975 have an overriding effect and as such he has to be treated as a member of service u/r 5(b) of 1992 Rules. It has already been held by a Division bench (in which one of us – MR Calla, J. was a member) of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.130/93 decided on 05/11/1993 that appointees on compassionate grounds are regular appointees. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the respondent held a regular appointment under the rules of 1975 and therefore, he could become a CW 12193/09 //2// member of service under rules of 1992 under rule 5(b) but the directions as have been given by him in the matter of assigning seniority to the respondent may render number of existing employees to be junior to him merely because the respondent got a regular appointment on compassionate grounds under the rules of 1975 and therefore, the request of seniority has engaged our attention in this appeal.” Thus viewed, it is settled that persons appointed on compassionate ground have to be treated as regularly recruited persons and are members of service from the date of their initial appointments. However, without going into merits, writ petition is hereby disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation within one month and if made, respondent- authority is directed to examine and pass speaking order taking note of DB decision in State of Rajasthan Vs. Ajay Sharma (supra) and communicate the decision within three months to petitioner, who if feels aggrieved, will be free to avail of remedy under the law. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.2/ 12193CW09Oct23-CmpsApttRglrRep.doc