1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 29.5.1998 and 22.7.98 whereby he has been denied the appointment in the dependent quota under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short as "Rules of 1996"), on the ground that the brother is not included in the definition of dependant. The petitioner has also challenged sub-clause (c ) of Rule 2 & sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996.

2. The facts in brief of the case are that the father of the petitioner was working as Head-Master in Government Secondary School, and after his death, in his place, elder brother of petitioner was given appointment under the Rules of 1996. The Elder brother died just after 5 months i.e. on 20.1.1996. The petitioner applied for appointment under the Rules of 1996 on 4.4.1998 but his application was rejected by the aforesaid impugned orders on the ground that brother is not included in the definition of dependant.

3. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the said rules of 1996 have been framed to give relief to the bereaved family by giving appointment to the dependant to overcome the financial crises in future. Although there is no specific provision that in case of death of the dependant, another member will be given appointment but still the Government has power under Rules 13 & 14 of the Rules of 1996 to remove the difficulties and the said rules have been enacted to meet out such contingencies also but the respondents Addl. Director (Admn.), Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner and Distt. Education Officer, Secondary Education (II), Sikar without referring the matter to the Government/Department of Personnel had rejected the application of the petitioner which is not in accordance with the aim, object and scheme of the Rules of 1996.

4. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that one of the dependant who could only work for a period of five months does not mean that another dependant of the deceased father has no right to apply. After the death of brother of the petitioner who was unmarried, the family reached to worst financial position than at the time of death of the father of petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has a right of consideration for compassionate appointment. The counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this court reported in 2005(1) WLC (Raj.) 237 (Smt. Asha Devi Gupta and anr. v. State of Raj. And ors.).

5. The submission of the counsel for the respondent-State is that the brother is not included in the definition of dependant as given in sub-clause 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, therefore, his application has rightly been rejected.

6. I have gone through the contents of the writ petition and also considered the rival submissions of both the parties.

7. The relevant para No. 3 of the judgment rendered in Smt. Asha Devi (supra) case is as under :

"3. The main object and aim of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 is to give relief to the family of the deceased Government employee who has died while in service. The provisions of the Rules cannot be placed in water tight compartment so as to deny the relief to the family. The provisions have to be construed harmoniously with human considerations. Even otherwise, the wife or the mother can nominate any of the close relatives for compassionate appointment if no other family member is in any employment. The State Government has also powers to remove difficulties in implementation of the Rules in special circumstances. In the present case, there is no dispute that though compassionate appointment was given to the eldest son of petitioner No. 1 on account of death of her husband, however, just after six months he also died and the family reached the same stage where the husband of the petitioner had died. The authorities should have taken lenient and humanitarian view in giving compassionat