The main legal point established is that the appointment of dependents for compassionate appointment must comply with the relevant rules and consider the overall interest and welfare of the family.

JUDGMENT

1. The present intra court appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 12.04.2018 passed by learned Single Bench whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment in the respondent Jai Narayan Vyas University (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent-university') in lieu of his deceased father was rejected.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the father of the appellant while working on the post of 'Tabla Vadak' in the respondent-university, passed away on 01.12.2004. The appellant and respondent No.4 (born through second wife Smt. Kamla) applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in place of deceased employee. The respondent-university considered both the applications keeping in view the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1996') and vide office order dated 04.08.2005 extended compassionate appointment in favour of respondent No.4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent-university, the appellant filed a writ petition which came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2018. Hence, this special appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that legality of second marriage of the deceased employee with Smt. Kamla is doubtful and therefore, compassionate appointment could not have been offered to the respondent No.4. Learned counsel further submitted that name of respondent No.4 was not entered as a dependent in the service book of deceased employee therefore, he was not even eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment. Lastly, it was submitted that appellant was fully eligible and entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment in place of deceased employee, however, illegally ignoring his right of claiming compassionate appointment as per Rules of 1996, the respondent No.4 has been appointed on compassionate grounds in the respondent university vide office order dated 04.08.2005 against the post of Class-IV employee. It was thus prayed that the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that indisputably, respondent No.4 is son of deceased employee and Smt. Kamla Devi therefore, he was fully eligible to seek employment in the respondent-university upon the death of his father Shri Harish Puri. Learned counsel further submitted that in cases where more than one of the dependents seek employment on compassionate grounds, Rule 10(2) the Rules of 1996 empowers Head of the Department to select one of the dependents of the deceased employee. Lastly, it was submitted that the competent authority, after receiving applications for compassionate appointment from more than one dependent of the deceased employee thoroughly considered the financial position and educational qualifications possessed by the applicants before reaching to the conclusion that respondent No.4 deserved to be appointed as Class-IV employee in the respondent-university. It was thus prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed as being devoid of merit.

5. Heard submissions advanced at Bar and perused the material available on record.

6. Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 1996 is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-

10. Procedure :- (2) Where the deceased Government servant is not survived by a spouse the application shall be made by one of the dependants of the deceased Government servant and other dependants shall have to give their consent for his/her candidature. Provided that if more than one of the dependants seek employment, the Head of Department shall select one, keeping in view the overall interest and welfare of the entire family, particularly the minor members."

7. In the case of Union of India vs. V.R. Tripathi reported in (2019) 14 SCC 646, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while considering the issue of legitimacy of child born from a second marriage, held as under:

12. The real issue in