SBCWP NO.4973/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4973/2007. Dharmveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order:- April 10, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ashok Gaur for the petitioner. Shri Zakir Hussain, Additional Government Counsel. ****** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the order dated 16/4/2004 by which application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected. 2) Father of the petitioner was initially appointed in the services of the respondents on the post of Teacher Gr.III in the year 1996. 3) Shri Ashok Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the year 2004, the SBCWP NO.4973/07. 2 State Government took a policy decision to appoint all those persons who had served as Shiksha Karmi in the nature of appointment of the father of the petitioner. However, the said circular was not given effect to. Subsequently when his services were terminated, he filed writ petition being SBCWP No.2263/2006 which was disposed of with direction to the respondents to appoint petitioner. Father of the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 7/11/2006, unfortunately, however, he suddenly died on 8/12/2006. Application of the petitioner was rejected on the premise that he does not possess the eligibility qualification according to the guidelines of the N.C.E.T. and he is not entitled to be appointed on the post of Teacher being untrained. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is possessing the qualification of B.A., M.A. LL.B. apart from qualification of P.G. Diploma in Labour Law and he is highly qualified. His case ought to have been considered but the respondents arbitrarily rejected his case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that father of the petitioner was getting consolidated salary as per newly introduced rules initially for a period of three years, his appointment has been treated as substantive and SBCWP NO.4973/07. 3 wives of the employees who die while in service are entitled to compassionate appointment. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sarita Kanwar Vs. State and 2 ors. : 2009 WLC (UC) 138. 4) Shri Zakir Hussain, Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that late father of the petitioner hardly served for one month. He was appointed on 7/11/2006 and died on 8/12/2006. Petitioner was rightly denied appointment because he was not qualified for appointment as Teacher Grade-III being untrained. Writ petition be therefore dismissed. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that respondents have rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds merely on the premise that father of the petitioner served for a little period and his appointment was not substantive in nature. Even otherwise if the view of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sarita Kanwar supra is accepted, according to which, the appointment even on consolidated pay on emergent temporary basis, would entitle the wife of the deceased employee to seek SBCWP NO.4973/07. 4 compassionate appointment as the service was not contractual in nature, petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment. In any case, respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner citing the reason of his lack of training and that father of the petitioner was not substantively appointed. They cannot be permitted now to supply fresh reasons in rejecting his claim. But at the same time, it appears that the respondents did not consider case of the petitioner for any other post except the Teacher. 6) In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned-order dated 16/4/2007 (Annexure-2) is quashed and set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for any other post available with them consistent with the eligibility qualification of the petitioner. 7) No order as to costs. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) J. anil