1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1222/1997 (Yashwant Kumar Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) ......... Date of Order : 06/01/2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. A.K.Rajvanshy for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Ladrecha, Govt. Counsel for the respondent. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint him on the post of Teacher Gr.III. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's father Shri Punam Chand Soni was Freedom Fighter and died on 25.11.1991 and the petitioner is unemployed, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for appointment under the Rajasthan Freedom Fighters Aid Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules of 1959' hereinafter). Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to Rule 12 (5) of the Rules of 1959. 2 Rule 12 of the Rules of 1959 reads as under:- “12. Employment in Government Service etc.- (1) A person who lost Government service in the circumstances specified in clause (d) of Rule 3 will be eligible to re-employment in Government service if he is below fifty-five years of age. (2) Such person may be granted with retrospective effect from the date of the termination of his service such proportionate pension or gratuity or both as would have been admissible to him on that date according to the Rules to which he was then subject as if he had been compulsorily retired on and from that on grounds of ill health. (3) A civil pensioner whose pension was forfeited in any of the circumstances specified in clause (d) of rule 3 will be restored his pension with retrospective effect from the date on which the forfeiture took effect. (4) Except as provided in sub-rule (5) no claim for any relief under this rule shall be entertained if made by any dependent, heir or successor of a political sufferer. (5) If a person who lost Government service in the circumstances specified in clause (d) of rule 3 has since died or is more than fifty-five years of age or has become infirm and unfit for Government service, the State Government may provide suitable employment in Government service to any two of such 3 person's dependents or, if there be no dependent in existence to any one of his heirs if it is satisfied of the existence of acute distress for want of such employment.” Sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1959 provides that If a person who lost Government service in the circumstances specified in clause (d) of rule 3 has since died or is more than fifty-five years of age or has become infirm and unfit for Government service, the State Government may provide suitable employment in Government service to any two of such person's dependents or, if there be no dependent in existence to any one of his heirs if it is satisfied of the existence of acute distress for want of such employment. Clause (d) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1959 provides that loss of Government service by dismissal, discharge, forced resignation on grounds connected with political movement or for association with or participation in a political movement or on the grounds of association or relationship with a person participating in a political movement or engaged in any activity connected with political movement. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner's father was neither in Govt. service nor had lost the Govt. service by dismissal, discharge, forced resignation on grounds connected with political movement or for association with or participation in a political movement or on the grounds of association or relationship with a 4 person participating in a political movement or engaged in any activity connected with political movement. Thus, the condition precedent for providing the employment under Rule 12 (5) of the Rules of 1959 is not fulfilled. It may be that the petitioner's father was political worker and freedom fighter, however after the Independence, he himself joined the Government service and therefore, the question of loss of Govt. service by dismissal, discharge, forced resignation on grounds connected with political movement or for association with or participation in a political movement or on the grounds of association or relationship with a person participating in a political movement or engaged in any activity connected with political movement, does not arise. However, the petitioner applied for the post and competed, his case was considered and was not found meritorious and in reply the State came with a case that no person less meritorious than the petitioner has been selected. Thus, it is not the case of the petitioner that less meritorious person than the petitioner has been selected. More so, the merit list came to an end on 31.03.1997 for the interviews for the Session 1996-97. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 5 S.B.CIVIL MISC. STAY PETITION NO. 1025/1997 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1222/1997 Date of Order : 06/01/2009 HON'BLE MR. H.R.PANWAR, J. Mr. A.K.Rajvanshy for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Ladrecha, Govt. Counsel for the respondent. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp