1/4 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8865/2008 Deepak Panwar vs District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur & Anr. Date of order: 11.5.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Girish Sankhala, for the petitioner. Mr.Shanker Singh for Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, for the respondent. <><><> At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. The contention of the petitioner is that advertisement issued on 10.1.2008 for recruitment on the post of Lower Divisional Clerk. The total post were 5 and 3 were for general category. The petitioner applied in pursuance of the said advertisement dated 10.1.2008 (Annex.1) and his name in the list of merit published on 25th April, 2008 find place at S.No.4. Out of 4, one was the member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, the petitioner came within the three available posts. However, the respondents have not given appointment to the petitioner then the petitioner preferred this writ petition on the ground that petitioner is duly selected candidate and 2/4 is entitled to the appointment to the post of LDC in the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The respondents submitted reply stating therein that after publication of the said notice for the appointment (Annex.1) dated 10.1.2008, one appointment was given to the dependent of inservice employee Ashok Kumar Kashayp by order dated 30.8.2008. It is submitted that the application was submitted on 20.8.2008 due to death of the employee on 24th July, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the process for direct recruitment is given in the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 and as per sub-rule (c) of Rule 3, “Direct Recruitment” means recruitment otherwise than by promotion or transfer. It is submitted that the petitioner's appointment has been denied only because of the reason of giving appointment to Smt. Poonam Kashayp wife of deceased employee Ashok Kumar Kashayp and by way of giving appointment to the dependent, cannot take away the right of the petitioner for getting appointment in due process of selection for the post advertised. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that before the 3/4 appointment order dated 20.8.2008 was made, the petitioner was already declared selected on 25th April, 2008, therefore, by subsequent event, the petitioner's right cannot be denied. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. It is true that advertisement was issued on 10.1.2008 and as per the petitioner's own case, three posts were available for general category candidates for the post of LDC. Therefore, three candidates of the general category could have been accommodated against that vacancy, but subsequent to that, an event occurred, which is beyond control of anybody and because of that reason, the compassionate appointment was required to be given to the dependent of the employee and that appointment is also an appointment under the Rules and the definition of direct recruitment clearly means the recruitment otherwise than by promotion or transfer. The appointment given on compassionate ground is not by promotion or by transfer and, therefore, the appointment of Smt. Poonak Kashayp – dependent of the deceased employee Ashok Kashayp is also a direct recruitment and was given against the general 4/4 category vacancy for which the petitioner is claiming his right. Since because of the appointment given to the dependent of the deceased employee vide Annex.R/2/1 no vacancy of general category remain, therefore, the petitioner's writ petition has no merit, hence, dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. cpgoyal/-