Compassionate appointments must consider the employment status of dependents at the time of the deceased's death, not subsequent changes.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN MONGA, J.

1. Grievance of the petitioner, seeking compassionate appointment on the death of his father, who died in harness on 21.11.2007, stems out of an order dated 17.05.2023, vide which his request was declined by recalling his earlier appointment order dated 18.12.2019. The petitioner claims that as per the applicable compassionate appointment policy, he is entitled to the benefit thereof.

2. Relevant facts of the case as pleaded are as follows:-

2.1 Petitioner’s father was appointed as Teacher on 09.10.1986, but died in harness on 21.11.2007. Being one of the dependents, submitted an application on 18.12.2007 along with requisite documents and sought appointment on compassionate grounds. During pendency of his application, sister of the petitioner got selected for the post of Forester on 30.06.2016. Subsequently, petitioner’s sister got married on 17.04.2019. Petitioner’s case is that she does not thus fall within the category of dependents in view of definition of Rule 2 (c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1996’). It was thus that the competent authority vide office order dated 18.12.2019 made recommendation for compassionate appointment on the post of Class-IV employee and district Pratapgarh was also allotted to the petitioner and his name was reflected at S.No.31.

2.2 However, when petitioner approached the respondent no.4/DEO, Pratapgarh, to join on the said post, he was not allowed to join. Instead a copy of communication dated 13.03.2020 was provided to the petitioner vide which guidance was sought by respondent No.4 from respondent no.3/Director whether or not to permit the petitioner to join duty.

2.3 Petitioner then approached this Court by filing a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2003/2023 challenging the validity and propriety of the communication dated 13.03.2020. During the pendency of the said writ petition, vide impugned order dated 17.05.2023, earlier recommendation of compassionate appointment of the petitioner was cancalled relying upon a circular dated 08.04.2015. After passing of the order dated 17.05.2023 petitioner withdrew the said writ petition with liberty to file fresh. Hence the second foray of lis through the instant petition.

3. The defense taken by respondents in their reply is essentially that the affidavits submitted by the family members of a deceased government servant in support of application seeking compassionate appointment are false, to the extent that it was stated that there is no dependent of deceased in government service.

3.1. Reliance is also on Rule 5 of the 1996 Regulations which stipulates that appointments on compassionate grounds can only be in cases where the spouse or at least one dependent child of the deceased government servant is not employed in government service. In the case in hand, the unmarried daughter of the deceased government servant was in employment with the Forest Department since 2016, rendering the petitioner's claim as not maintainable. Despite this, the petitioner submitted an affidavit asserting that Ms. Sonam, the daughter, was a 'student' with no income, attempting to deceive the authorities and secure employment under the 1996 Regulations.

3.2. Further defense is that Ms. Sonam was indeed unmarried at the time of the pending application of the petitioner seeking appointment. Her marriage took place in April 2019. Consequently, the affidavits submitted by the petitioner on 22.11.2018 and 21.01.2019, sworn under oath, are/were deemed false. Therefore, the petitioner's attempt to gain appointment by withholding this crucial information rendered him ineligible for joining pursuant to the office order dated 18.12.2019.

4. With the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the competing contentions of the learned counsels and perused the case file.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously urges that the action of the res