1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7681/02 Subhash Chand Jain vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 27/1/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ishwar Tiwari on behalf of Shri Karan Pal Singh for the petitioner. Shri Zakir Hussain, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 8.10.2002 by which the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner was appointed on the post of L.D.C. on compassionate ground in consideration of the fact that his father who was working as Senior Teacher with the respondents died while serving on 21.3.1998. The respondents have passed the order impugned dated 8.10.2002 on the ground that petitioner while making application for compassionate appointment concealed the fact that in fact they were four brother and disclosed in the application that they were only 3 brothers. The impugned order states that the eldest brother of the petitioner 2 namely Vimal Chand Jain is already appointed in government service. According to Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 when one of the dependents of the deceased government servant is in employment, another dependent would not be entitled to claim such appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that the appointment granted on compassionate ground cannot be cancelled and that the elder brother of the petitioner Vimal Chand Jain has gone in adoption to one Shri Narain Lal in the year 1973. Reliance has been placed on the adoption deed, copy of which is produced on record. It was argued that the said Narain Lal was adopted at the age when he was only 8 years old and adoption deed was attested on 29.6.1973, therefore he could not be treated as son of Shri Jagdish Prasad Jain. Learned counsel alternatively submitted that Shri Vimal Chand Jain was separately living with his family and was not dependent of Jagdish 3 Prasad Jain. He in this connection cited the ration card of the family showing that name of Vimal Chand Jain was not included in the ration card. He also produced the copy of ration card of Shri Vimal Chand and argued that Vimal Chand was residing independent of the family. Learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that as per the spirit of Rule 5, when one son of the deceased government servant is already in service, another son could not be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. It was argued that the petitioner concealed this fact from the government while applying for appointment on compassionate ground and that if at all he wanted to claim appointment in spite of service of his elder brother, he was required to disclose this fact. Learned counsel submitted that mere separate ration card would not justify the argument and even otherwise, in that ration card too, name of Vimal Chand Jain was not shown as son of Jagdish Prasad Jain. Having heard the learned counsel for the 4 parties and perused the material on record, I find that the fact that Vimal Chand Jain was naturally born son of Jagdish Prasad Jain is not in dispute and an exception is being claimed by the petitioner on the ground of adoption. The so-called adoption deed appears to have been only attested before Notary Public and not registered as per the requirement of law. This is a contentious issue. Even otherwise, grant of compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal Rule of appointment as per the prescribed procedure. The petitioner obviously has concealed this fact from the respondents while securing appointment. He was required to have made all the facts known to the respondents at the time when he applied for such appointment. In the facts of the case, no interference is called for by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/