ONCE THE RULES FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT ARE RELAXED IN FAVOR OF A CANDIDATE, DENYING THE APPOINTMENT BY INVOKING THE SAME RULE AGAIN IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY.

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer :-

"1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 05.02.2016 Annex.P/7 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents no. 1 may kindly be directed to consider the application of the petitioner for relaxation in the age and provide him compassionate appointment on the suitable post.

3. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

4. Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."

2. Admittedly, the petitioner has been denied compassionate appointment on the ground that he crossed the age of 40 years, he made the application for compassionate appointment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that in another case Govind Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7222/2014) decided on 02.05.2016, the judgment reads as under :-

"1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 24.07.2014 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur by which appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by invoking Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rules of 1996').

2. Briefly put the facts, the father of the petitioner was killed while discharging his duties as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on 05.06.2002. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for being accorded compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996 on 12.07.2002. The matter was considered and it was found that the brother of the petitioner was already appointed as a Constable in the Police Department. However, it was also noted that there was a provision for relaxation of the Rules. Eventually, the matter was considered in the office of the Chief Minister and by an order dated 30.12.2002, the competent authorities decided to relax the Rules. Thereafter, it was decided to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Since appointment was not given to the petitioner even after the relaxation of the Rules, the petitioner approached this court by way of writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12035/2013, Govind Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and vide order dated 21.10.2013, a direction was issued to the petitioner to move a necessary application for providing appointment on a lower post than what was sought (appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector). Pursuant to the order passed, the petitioner moved a necessary application seeking appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk and also moved a notice of demand dated 16.07.2014. The respondents declined to offer compassionate appointment vide order dated 24.07.2014 while invoking Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 to the effect that the brother of the petitioner was already in government service and had been appointed as a Constable with the Police Department. Aggrieved against the denial of appointment, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contends that the denial is illegal and arbitrary on the ground that the rules for appointment had already been relaxed in favour of the petitioner by the State vide its order dated 30.12.2002 and by denying him the appointment on compassionate ground, he has been put to unnecessary harassment.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents argues that the appointment cannot be afforded to the petitioner as Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 clearly specifies that when a government servant dies, one of the dependents may be considered for appointment in government service subject to the condition that the employment under these Rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or at