The court upheld the denial of compassionate appointment based on the applicant's pending criminal case, emphasizing the necessity of good moral character as per the applicable rules.

JUDGMENT :

(ANAND SHARMA, J.)

1. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 15.06.2000 issued by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer, whereby the petitioner has been denied compassionate appointment on account of pendency of criminal case, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition stating therein that his father Late Shri Haider Ali Shekh was holding of substantive post of Teacher in Govt. Primary School, Bhinai, unfortunately, he expired on 13.08.1999 while he was in service leaving behind his wife, one daughter and two sons. Petitioner contends that his father was sole bread earner in the family and therefore, his sudden death has put the entire family in grave financial crisis. Petitioner being eligible submitted an application on 04.09.1999 under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules of 1996’) for seeking compassionate appointment in place of deceased father, however, such application was rejected by Additional Chief Executive Officer, vide letter dated 15.06.2000 on the ground that criminal case registered vide FIR No. 33/99 registered at Police Station Bhinai for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 323, 307 and 427 of IPC was pending against the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner did not possess good antecedents, hence, he was not entitled for compassionate appointment.

3. Petitioner further states that for the aforesaid criminal case he was tried by competent criminal court and vide judgment dated 24.03.2005 although, he has been convicted for the charges under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 427 of IPC, yet the competent court has granted him benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, ‘the Act of 1958’) and has also been granted benefit of Section 12 of the aforesaid Act of 1958. Hence, the aforesaid letter/order dated 15.06.2000 issued by Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer, may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

4. The respondents filed the reply to the writ petition highlighting that while considering the application for compassionate appointment it was found that the criminal case was pending against the petitioner and he was not possessing good moral character and as per Rules the person who does not have good antecedents and moral character, is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Hence, the respondents have rightly rejected the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

5. I have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Prasad Meena Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. ( DBCWP No. 14693/2011 ) decided on 14.02.2014. Besides, he has also cited the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 2679/2024 decided on 20.02.2024.

7. As the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996, therefore, his eligibility was to be tested at the touch stone of the provisions of the Rules of 1996. Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1996 lays down that before a dependant is appointed, the appointing authority shall satisfy itself that he is otherwise fit for appointment in Government Service looking to his/her character and physical fitness. Thus, it was well within the rights of the respondents to examine the moral character of the petitioner before offering him compassionate appointment. In the instant case, on enquiry, it has been found by the respondents tha