1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6481/2008 Bal Kishan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 2 nd September, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the petitioner. .... By this petition for writ a direction is sought by the petitioner for the respondents to appoint him as Lower Division Clerk. In brief, facts of the case are that an appointment was given to the petitioner on compassionate grounds as Class-IV employee on 25.8.2003. The petitioner then preferred a petition for writ (SBCivil Writ Petition No.2206/2004) claiming appointment as Lower Division Clerk. The petition for writ aforesaid was disposed of in following terms:- “Heard. The petitioner claims that he should have been appointed as Class III employee in place of Class IV employee. Rule 277 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 does not envisages any such contingency. It only envisages an appointment against an existing vacancy in relaxation to the recruitment Rules. Such appointment has been offered and 2 he having accepted, no interference can be granted. However, now the petitioner proposes to file a representation to get higher appointment than the one he has accepted. He may move a representation, which the respondent authorities will deal with suitably. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.” The petitioner, after disposal of the writ petition aforesaid, submitted a representation to the competent authority and that came to be negatived by the Deputy Secretary (Administration-II) to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj on 21.2.2008, hence this petition for writ is preferred. As a matter of fact the claim of the petitioner was rejected by this Court in his earlier writ petition in specific terms that “Rule 277 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 does not envisages any such contingency. It only envisages an appointment against an existing vacancy in relaxation to the recruitment Rules. Such appointment has been offered and he having accepted, no interference can be granted.” The respondents have also considered the case of the petitioner and rightly reached at the conclusion that once the petitioner has accepted appointment as Class-IV employee, he has lost his claim for appointment on any higher post in view of 3 clause(6) of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996. For the reasons stated above, the petition for writ is having no merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.