CW 2218/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2218/08 Vinsten Kelvin Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 03/07/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. J.P. Goyal, for petitioner *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner seeking compassionate appointment on account of death of his mother who served the government as Teacher died while in service on 2nd April, 1991. Petitioner's father is already in employment and working as Clerk in RSRTC and after petitioner attained majority, application was filed by him seeking compassionate appointment on 27th March, 1999 which has been finally rejected by respondents vide order Ann.12 dated 19th August, 2006 whereby he was informed that in view of R.5 of Rules, 1996 since his father is already in employment in statutory Corporation, he is not eligible seeking compassionate appointment. Counsel for petitioner submits that after death of his mother, his father has left petitioner and he is residing with his grand parents and has never taken care of him. As such, he was completely dependent on his mother only and as such, even if his father is in employment, it is covered by R.5 of Rules, 1996. Taking note of his dependency that cannot be considered to be CW 2218/08 [2] a ground to deny his legitimate right of seeking compassionate appointment under Rules, 1996. Counsel further submits that since his mother died in April, 1991 and at the relevant point of time Rules of 1975 was in vogue, as such, even if he has submitted application in March, 1999 on attaining majority his right of consideration seeking compassionate appointment will be examined only under the Scheme of Rules, 1975 which the respondent has committed an error in rejecting his application under order impugned. In opinion of this court, submission made is of no substance for the reason that R.5 of Rules, 1996 clearly contemplates that if any member of the family is serving in the State Government or any statutory organization or body corporate which is under control of the government that disentitles other family members seeking compassionate appointment under Rules, 1996. In the instant case, petitioner's father who was supposed to take care of petitioner is in employment of a statutory Corporation that certainly disentitles petitioner seeking compassionate appointment under the Scheme of Rules, 1996. So far as submission made with regard to applicability of Rules, 1975 is concerned, suffice it to say that after the Rules, 1996 came into force, Rules of 1975 stands repealed. CW 2218/08 [3] In the instant case, petitioner submitted application in March, 1999 certainly it was required to be considered only under the Rules, 1996 which are operating upon at the relevant point of time and his application could not have been considered under the repealed Rules, 1975. Consequently, this court finds no substance in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA2218CW2008 3-7.doc