The petitioner has preferred by this writ petition making a following prayer :

“i. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of L.D.C. or any other appropriate post commensurate to the qualification of the petitioner under the Rules, 2002 with all consequential benefits;

ii. by appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner as L.D.C. in Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara in pursuance of application made by the petitioner and the petitioner may be appointed on the post of L.D.C. or any other post which is commensurate to the qualification of the petitioner on the ground of compassionate employment as per rules, 2002;

iii. any other order, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; and

iv. Costs of this writ petition be allowed to the petitioner.

2. The facts as noticed by this Court in the petition are that the father of the petitioner died while in service on 30.09.2006. The petitioner applied for getting compassionate appointment under the provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 on 10.06.2006 within 40 days of death of the petitioner’s father alongwith application form duly supported by the affidavit of the petitioner’s mother and sister.

3. The respondents did not consider the application dated 08.11.2006 on the ground that the petitioner would require a succession certificate which was accordingly obtained by the petitioner on 28.05.2013. The respondents, however, in spite of the succession certificate did not grant the compassionate appointment to the petitioner and therefore, petitioner preferred this writ petition.

4. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a reply and stated that the petitioner is 39 years of age and hence, over age for the compassionate appointment. The respondents have also stated that there were two marriages of the petitioner’s father and since the divorce was granted in the first marriage and the petitioner is the son procreated out of the first marriage, therefore, being the family of the first wife he does not have any right after the divorce. The reply also objects to the succession certificate obtained by the petitioner on the ground that no objection has been taken from all the successors which would entitle the petitioner of compassionate appointment. During the course of argument the counsel for the respondents also furnished a order dated 03.07.2007, which was the government appointment order of the second wife, who is respondent No.4 in the present writ petition in widow quota. Counsel for the respondents argued that since only one family member was entitled in the Government service, therefore, petitioner shall be disentitled for seeking job under the Compassionate Appointment Rules. Counsel for the residents further argued that the legitimate intention of granting compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate crisis of the family.

5. Counsel for the respondent also drew attention of the Court to Rule 5 of the Rules 1996 which permitted appointment only if there was no surviving Government Servant in the family. Counsel for the petitioner stated that his entitlement for the compassionate appointment happened on 30.09.2006 when the father of the petitioner died while in service. The role of the petitioner to claim such entitlement virtually came to an end on 06.11.2006, when he submitted a proper application for consideration for the compassionate appointment. Once the petitioner had submitted such application on 06.11.2006, the respondents were under the legal obligation to grant compassionate appointment in accordance with Rules, 1996. Any delay caused by the respondents for giving the compassionate appointment cannot be attributed to the petitioner as he had made his application well in time on 06.11.2006. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the date of