1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2363/2002. : : Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 28.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Jitendra Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.7.2001 whereby compassionate appointment granted to the petitioner was cancelled. Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that District Education Officer, Jhunjhunu by his communication dated 18.1.2001 demanded from the petitioner the affidavit of the fact that his brother has already engaged in Indian Military and was residing with his in-laws, certificate and also adoption deed. It was contended that the petitioner produced the said documents which the District Officer forwarded to Deputy Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. The petitioner was appointed by order 2 dated 8.1.2001 in consideration of the fact that his father, who was serving with the respondents on the post of Teacher, died on 15.6.2000. The respondents could not abruptly pass the impugned order dated 9.7.2001 which infact would tantamount to termination of the service. Learned counsel submitted that such an order could not be passed without any departmental enquiry. It was, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may be allowed. Shri Zakir Hussain, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the appointment could not be granted to the petitioner because in view of Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 if already one son was in Government service the petitioner would not be eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. A perusal of the arguments aforesaid and also the material available on record, I find that sole basis on which the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled, is that under the Rules of 1996 he was not entitled to be appointed because his brother was already serving the Indian Army. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 clearly provides that employment under these rules shall not be granted in cases where the 3 spouse, son, unmarried daughter, adopted son and adopted daughter under the Central Government/State Government at the time of death of Government servant. It is not in dispute that brother of the petitioner is serving the Indian Army, but the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that brother of the petitioner who was engaged in Indian Army is residing with his in-laws is not acceptable. Adoption deed was registered on 17.1.2001 whereas the compassionate appointment was given on 8.1.2001, which clearly shows that it is created as an alibi to justify the appointment of the petitioner. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 9.7.2001 passed by the respondents cannot be faulted and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. This writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.26.