1 15 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.384/2008. Ramjana Vs. Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner & Ors. Date of Order :: 18th January 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Usman Ghani for Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, for the petitioner. ..... BY THE COURT: By way of this petition for writ, the petitioner stating her age at 34 years and herself being the sister of the deceased employee Anwar, who was serving as Class IV employee with the respondent Rajasthan Agriculture University and had expired on 31.07.2007, seeks directions against the respondents to offer her appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that her brother Anwar, serving as Class IV employee with the respondent-University had expired on 31.07.2007; that her brother had married one Smt. Haseena in the year 1984 and from out of the wedlock was born the respondent No.3 Irshad; that unfortunately, there were disputes between the husband and wife and as such Smt. Haseena filed a petition before the competent court and therein, by a decree for divorce issued on 2 04.10.1999, the relationship between them as husband and wife came to an end. It is the case of the petitioner that Smt. Haseena wife of the deceased employee took the son, i.e., the respondent No.3, with her and since thereafter he was living with his mother only who entered into second marriage after the said divorce. The petitioner has also pointed out that the deceased employee Anwar, after such divorce, submitted an application to the employer for change of nomination in his service record and the name of the wife of the employee was substituted by the name of the present petitioner in the nomination with the employer. The petitioner has also stated that the deceased Anwar again entered into marriage with one Tarannum Parveen but such relationship did also not go successful and late Shri Anwar divorced her too. The petitioner has stated that she is unmarried and living with her mother and brothers, who were the dependents of the deceased employee Anwar; that she submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground accompanied by the affidavits of the family members like mother and brothers, who have stated their no objection if the appointment is offered to the petitioner. The petitioner has further stated that the respondent No.3 Irshad has also applied for appointment on compassionate ground being the son of the deceased employee and has levied claim over the 3 dues of the deceased employee by filing an application (Annex.5). The petitioner contends that the respondent No.3 was living with his mother since the year 1999 after divorce of parents; that he never came to his father's house after divorce and has no claim for compassionate appointment. According to the petitioner, she alone is entitled for being offered compassionate appointment on suitable post. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having examined the material placed on record, this Court finds that the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent-University on one hand, and between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 on the other, essentially involve the questions of fact; and the rights sought to be claimed are dependent on determination of such questions of fact with reference to adequate and cogent evidence. Looking to the averments taken by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the matter is free from any dispute of fact; and this Court is clearly of opinion that such dispute by its very nature cannot be adjudicated in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a request during the course of arguments that the petitioner may be permitted to make representation to the authorities concerned and they may be directed to decide the representation. Suffice is to say that nothing prevents the petitioner from making 4 representation and/or to take resort to adequate remedies in accordance with law in relation to her grievance, if any; and in that regard no observations or directions are requisite from this Court. Exercise of writ jurisdiction in this matter is refused; and the writ petition is rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/