Honble LAKSHMANAN, C.J.–All the above appeals were filed by the State of Rajasthan against the common judgment dated February 2, 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, partly allowing the writ petitions filed by the respective respondents.

WRIT APPEAL NO. 635/2000

(2). The respondent Rajendra filed the Writ Petition No. 4432/98 to declare Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996 to be arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Constitution and to quash the communication dated 18.10.97 and 7/8.1.98 and consequently direct the respondents to consider the application of the respondent petitioner for suitable appointment after taking into consideration his qualification in accordance with the Rules with consequential benefits. The Respondents father died on 4.5.1995. At the time of his death the respondent was about 15 years of age and was student of 8th standard. He passed out the Senior Secondary Examination in 1996. Thereafter he submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the proforma appended to the Rules of 1996. The application was turned down by the 2nd appellate herein on the ground that as per Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document