Ajay Rastogi, J.

1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the dependent son of deceased employee of the Corporation who died in accident with the vehicle of the Corporation while in service. Although prior to introducing the Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Employees of RSRTC Regulations 2010, the Rules of compassionate appointment of State Govt. namely The Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 were applicable.

2. The Corporation under Clause 4(3) of Regulation 2010 disqualified the dependent of the deceased employee seeking compassionate appointment if he/she claims compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (MV Act) due to the vehicular death of the employee with the vehicle of the Corporation and if the dependent is interested for compassionate appointment one has to furnish undertaking that they will not file any claim application seeking compensation under the MV Act against the Corporation.

3. Brief facts of the case which can be culled out from the records are that the deceased employee & father of the petitioner, while serving as a Helper at the age of 35 years met with an accident with the vehicle of the Corporation on 26.7.2012 and died at the spot.

4. The dependents of the deceased employee including the present petitioner in all six filed a joint claim application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (MACT) Tonk u/S.166 read with Section 140 of the MV Act claiming compensation impleading the vehicle driver and the Corporation as defendants. At the same time, after fulfilment of the requirement as provided under the Scheme of Regulation 2010, the present petitioner who happens to be the eldest son of the deceased employee submitted application for compassionate appointment but that came to be rejected by the respondents vide order dated 25.2.2014 informing him that as they have already filed claim application against the Corporation that disentitles the dependent seeking compassionate appointment under Clause 4(3) of Regulation 2010.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the restriction which has been imposed by the Corporation under Clause 4(3) of Regulation 2010 is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and in a case where the employee of the Corporation met with an accident with the vehicle other than the vehicle of the Corporation and died while in service he can certainly make an application to claim compensation under the MV Act and at the same time one of the dependent of the deceased employee if otherwise eligible can be considered seeking compassionate appointment under Regulation 2010 but in a case where the serving employee of the Corporation died due to accident with the vehicle of the Corporation he has to opt either to seek compassionate appointment under Regulation 2010 or to sue the Corporation claiming compensation under MV Act and two different standards examining eligibility for seeking compassionate appointment is wholly arbitrary and has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved and casualty never occur with the prior notice, the vehicle with which the employee is supposed to meet with the accident and so called artificial distinction made under Clause 4(3) of the Regulation 2010 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

6. Counsel further submits that in the MV Act on account of vehicular death victim can claim compensation and if there is any Scheme of compassionate appointment, one of the defendant of the deceased employee can claim compassionate appointment under the relevant Scheme and it has no co-relation and such restriction which has been imposed under Regulation 4(3) of the Regulation 2010 is wholly irrational and deserves to be quashed.

7. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand while supporting Clause 4(3) of Regulation 2010 submits that dependent of the deceased employee while seeking compassionate appointment due to death of the employe