CWP-6154/08 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6154/2008 Smt. Anju Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. Date Of Order :: 15/12/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. S.P. Mathur, for petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Pareek, Dy. Govt. Counsel for respondent. Instant petition has been filed by widow of deceased Om Prakash Sharma who was serving in the State Government as Additional Block Primary Education Officer and posted in Panchayat Samiti Niwai, District Tonk while in service died on 29.10.2005. However, after his death the widow who is holding qualification of senior secondary from Board of Secondary Education in July,1992, submitted application seeking compassionate appointment on 11.11.2005 duly supported by affidavit that if she is given appointment on the post of Teacher she undertakes to qualify BSTC within three years along with which her case was forwarded to the authority for grant of compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996. However, application for appointment on the CWP-6154/08 (2) post of teacher was rejected on the premise that she is not holding basic training (BSTC). However, it was offered to the petitioner that if she is interested for appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk she may submit her consent, vide communication dt.06.05.2008 (Annx.6), which has been assailed in the instant petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that the Rules, 1996 have a overriding effect and u/r.9 of the Rules all requirements such as training or departmental examination or typing test are dispensed with at the initial appointment. However, he/she has to clear such training or departmental examination, as the case may be, within a period of three years for entitlement for confirmation. Counsel submits that in the present facts and circumstances, when the petitioner was holding academic qualification there was no requirement of holding training of BSTC as such denial of appointment on the post of Teacher is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Despite notice being served no reply to the writ petition has been filed. However, CWP-6154/08 (3) counsel for respondent taking assistance of the material which has come on record submits that academic qualification along with training is the minimum qualification under the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules,1971 and indisputably when the petitioner was not holding such training no error has been committed by the respondent in giving offer to join the post of Lower Division Clerk if she so desire. Rule 4 of the Rules,1996 having overriding effect postulates that these rules govern appointment of dependants of deceased on compassionate ground and all such requirements with respect to selection have been dispensed with primarily with an object that when the bread winner is no more the family of the deceased needs social protection and being in harness employment is required and if the requirement under the relevant rules comes into play a dependant will be deprived of employment and that will affect the whole of the family of the deceased. Rule 9 of the Rules,1996 postulates the requirement such as training or departmental examination or typing test but CWP-6154/08 (4) the same are exempted at the stage of initial appointment. However, the dependant shall be required to clear such training or departmental examination, as the case may be, within a period of three years for entitlement for confirmation with a further rider that if one fails to qualify within the period stipulated such appointment shall be liable to be terminated. Rule 9 of the Rules,1996 reads as under :- “9. Procedural Requirement etc.:-(1) The procedural requirement for selection such as training or departmental examination or typing test shall not be insisted upon at the initial appointment. The dependant shall however, be required to clear such training or departmental examination or typing test, within a period of 3 years for entitlement for confirmation failing which his/her appointment shall be liable to be terminated. No annual grade increments will be allowed until he/she acquires such qualifications. On acquiring such qualifications annual grade increments shall be CWP-6154/08 (5) allowed notionally from the date of appointment but no arrears will be paid.” In the light of R.9 of the Rules,1996, referred to supra, the action of the respondent in holding the petitioner to be ineligible on the premise that she is not holding training of BSTC as such was not qualified for the post of Teacher Grade-3rd is not legally sustainable and their action is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and so also Rule 9 of the Rules,1996. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The communication made to the petitioner dt.06.05.2008 (Annx.6) is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-3rd based on her academic qualification. However, the respondents can take note of R.9 of the Rules. Compliance of the judgment be made within two months. No cost. (Ajay Rastogi),J. VS Shekhawat/-p.5 6154cw08Dec15FnlDsps.doc