Honble GARG, J.–By this judgment, the above eight special appeals (writ) are being decided together, as in all of them common questions of law and facts arise.

(1) D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 986/99

(2). The appellant-petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1589/1998 before this Court on 6.5.1998 stating inter-alia that appellant-petitioners father late Shri Jagdish was working as Class-IV employee under the control of respondent No. 2 (The Manager, Circuit House, Jodhpur) and her father Jagdish died on 3.10.1997 while he was in service. After the death of her father Jagdish, the appellant-petitioner moved an application through her mother for providing her appointment under The Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1996). But, the application of the appellant-petitioner for providing her appointment under the Rules of 1996 was rejected vide order dated 17.2.1998 (Annex.1) passed by the Asstt. Secretary to Government, General Administration (Group-5) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and the same was communicated to the appellant-petitioners mother vide letter dated 24.2.1998 (Annex.2). In the rejection order dated 17.2.1998 (Annex.1), it has been stated inter-alia that according to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, if the wife of the deceased is already employed, appointment cannot be given to any other dependants and since wife of the deceased Jagdish is already in employment, no appointment can be given to the appellant-petitioner.

(3). Aggrieved from the said order dated 17.2.1998 (Annex.1) and 24.2.1998 (Annex.2), the appellant-petitioner filed the said writ petition before this Court. In the said writ petition, validity of the provisions of Rule-5 of the Rules of 1996 was challenged.

(4). The learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the said writ petition vide order dated 18.3.1999 holding inter-alia that Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 is a valid one and it serves the purpose for which the Rules of 1996 have been framed.

(5). Aggrieved from the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.3.1999, the present special appeal has been preferred by the appellant-petitioner.

(6). In this special appeal also, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule - 5 of the Rules of 1996 contending inter-alia that the said Rule 5 was enacted in derogation with the objects sought to be achieved and it was also contrary to the provisions laying down the definition of the family members. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the said Rule - 5 of the Rules of 1996 is arbitrary, unreasonable, unconstitutional and invalid as it creates hindrance in serving the purpose for which the Rules of 1996 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.

(7). Before appreciating the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, it would be worthwhile to first reproduce hereinbelow Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 as amended by the State Government vide Notification dated 19.4.1999:-

``Rule 5. Appointment subject to certain conditions:- When a Government 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 atleast one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter of the deceased Government servant is already employed on regular basis under the Central/any State Government or Statutory Board, Organisation/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/any State Government at the time of death of the Government servant.

Provided that this condition shall not apply where the wid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document