Honble CHAUHAN, J.–In all these cases, the validity of the provision of Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short, ``the Rules) has been challenged as being unconstitutional, ultra-vires and arbitrary.

(2). The relevant rules, for determination of the controversy, read as under:-

``2(c) ``Dependant means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/daughter legally adopted by the deceased govt. servant during his/her life-time and who were wholly dependant on the deceased government servant at the time of his/her death.

Rule. (5) Appointment subject to certain condition:- When a govern- ment servant dies while in service, one of his/her dependants may be considered for appointment in government service subject to the condition that employment under these Rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or atlesat one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/daughter of the deceased government serva- nt is already employed on regular basis under the Central Government/State Government or Statutory Board, Organisation or Corporation owned or controlled by the Central/State Government at the time of death of the Government servant.

Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself.

(3). Learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases have vehemently submitted that the Rules have been framed to provide employment to one of the dependants of the deceased government servant to redeem the family immediately from the hardship suffered by it as it has lost its bread-earner. Thus, imposing the condition that in case the spouse or one of the sons or unmarried daughter is already in employment of the Government or any statutory corporation etc., the dependant shall not be eligible to get the employment. The said proviso is arbitrary, unreasonable, unconstitutional and invalid as it creates hinderance in serving the purpose, for which the Rules have been enacted, for the reason that in a given case, son or daughter who is in service, may not be financially supporting the family of the deceased employee and in such a case the family may face starvation.

(4). On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that the Rules are constitutionally valid and even in case where a son or unmarried daughter who is in government service, is financially supporting the family, the widow is entitled for seeking employment. Therefore, the Rules are valid and sufficiently achieve the purpose for which the same have been enacted.

(5). The law provides for presumption in favour of constitutional validity of the Statute. In Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad vs. Jan Mohammed Usman Bhai and another (1), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has observed as under:-

``There is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear violation of the constitutional principles. The Courts must presume that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciate the claim of its own people that its laws are directed against the problems made manifestly by experience and that its discrimination are based on adequate ground. It must be borne in mind that the Legislature is free to recognize degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be a clearest and finally that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality, the Court may take into consideration the matters of common knowledge, matters of rapport, history of the times and may assume every set of facts which can be conceived to be existing at the time of legislation.

In K. Anjaiah and others vs. K. Chandraiah and another (2), the Court has observed that it is the cardinal principle of construction that the statute and the rules or the regulations must be held to be constitutionally valid unless a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document