The main legal point established is that compliance with the rules for compassionate appointment, including consultation with relevant authorities, is essential, and the right to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds stands consumed upon joining the post offered.

B. Prasad, J.-Present special appeal was filed by the appellant assailing the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 26.3.2002. Petitioner has stated that he was appointed on compassionate grounds under The Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service) Rules. 1975 (for short the Rules). His appointment was to be governed by Rule 5 of the rules. Rule 5 reads as under:

"5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased.-In case of "deceased Government Servants" one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central/State Government or Statutory Board/ Organisations/ Corporations owned or controlled by the Central/State Government shall, on making an application for the purpose, be given a suitable employment in Government service without delay only against an existing vacancy, which is not within the purview of the State Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, provided such member fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post and is also otherwise qualified for Government service. In the event of non-availability of a vacancy or any of the members of the family, being unqualified or minor is not found suitable or eligible for immediate employment, then such cases should be considered immediately on the availability of the post or any one of them becomes qualified or eligible for such employment under these rules. Provided that recruitment may be made on posts which are within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, except the major State Services mentioned in Rule 3, where the Appointing Authority is satisfied in consultation with the Department of Personnel and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission that a dependent of a deceased Government servant is qualified and suitable for appointment to such posts."

2. According to the proviso of this rule, an appointment could be made on a post which was within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (R.P.S.C.) if the Appointing Authority is satisfied in consultation with the Department of Personnel and the R.P.S.C. that the dependent of the deceased Govt. servant is qualified and suitable for appointment to such post. From the record, we do not find that any such consultation is available whereby the State Govt. and the R.P.S.C. has opined that the appointment of the Revenue Inspector (Land Records) was approved by the Appointing Authority in consultation with the Department of Personnel and R.P.S.C. In absence of consultation as envisaged in the proviso under Rule 5, the claim of the petitioner does not appear to be one which requires consideration.

3. The learned Single Judge in his Judgment has referred that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition which went upto the Division Bench. Regarding those proceedings, the learned Single Judge has mentioned that the writ petition was disposed of as having become infructuous, then a review petition was filed, then a Division Bench Special Appeal was filed. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that the facts of Writ Petition No. 2674/92 have not been mentioned in the present writ petition and that goes to show that in the writ petition, certain facts were held back by the petitioner.

4. The learned Single Judge has also noticed that in another proceedings initiated at the behest of the petitioner, this came on record that the post of Inspector (Land Records) is a promotional post and no direct appointment was possible. In view of the aforesaid, the findings of the learned Single Judge do not appear in any way one which require interference. In the light of the proviso to Rule 5 of the rules which says that appointment can only be made in consultation with the Department of Personnel and the R.P.S.C. if the post is within the purview of the R.P.S.C. That being the position, direct recruitment was not possible on the post claimed by the petitioner

5. The mat