1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Mohan Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 281/2009 Date of Order : : 16/02/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Gopal Meghwal, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: 2 By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order Annex.6 dated 01.12.2006 passed by respondent No.2 denying compassionate appointment on the death of his father Late Shri Bhikaram on the ground that the petitioner's one of the brother namely Dhaglaram is already in Govt. service on the post of Sais and therefore, according to Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, the compassionate appointment cannot be granted to the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed by the petitioner that his brother Dhagla Ram son of the deceased Govt. servant is in Govt. employment for last about 10 years and he is still continuing in the Govt. service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the brother of the petitioner is living separately. He has placed on record the Ration Card, Voter List etc. showing separate identity and separate living of brother of the petitioner. Whether the brother of the petitioner is living separately or jointly is not the question to be gone into. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 provides that when a Government servant dies while in service one of his/her dependants may be considered for appointment in Government service subject to the condition that employment 3 under these Rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or at least one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/ daughter of the deceased Government servant is already employed on regular basis under the Central/ State Government or Statutory Board, Organisation/ Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/ State Government at the time of death of the Government servant. Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself. In the instant case, since the widow did not apply for the compassionate appointment and one of the son petitioner herein applied for compassionate appointment, in my view, the respondents were justified in passing the order impugned in view of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996. I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp