SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Raj) 422

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR 
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN , J.
Manoj Kumar Sharma, S/o. Late Shri Babulal Sharma - Petitioner 
Versus 
Government Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary – Respondent 
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4531 of 2020 
Decided On : 23-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anoop Pareek Mr. Kshitiz Sharma Mr. Pranav Pareek Mr. Manoj Sharma, (Petitioner present in Person)
For the Respondent: Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Mr. Yashwant Singh

Termination of a compassionate appointee for failing to pass mandatory departmental tests within the stipulated period, after being provided sufficient opportunities, is legally valid. Proficiency tests are essential conditions for service confirmation, and administrative decisions to terminate for non-compliance are not subject to judicial interference absent clear illegality.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Procedural Requirements - Mandatory nature of departmental tests for confirmation of service - Requirement to pass typing test within stipulated period - Failure to qualify resulting in termination of service is consistent with service rules. (Paras 6, 7, 11)

(B) Judicial Review - Administrative Action - Scope of interference - Where an employee has been afforded multiple opportunities to qualify for a mandatory test and fails to do so, administrative authorities are justified in executing termination as per service regulations - Courts should not interfere with such lawful exercise of authority. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as a clerk on compassionate grounds. Under the applicable service rules, the petitioner was required to pass a typing test within three years to confirm his services, with failure to do so resulting in termination. Despite being provided with multiple opportunities to clear the examination over several years, the petitioner failed to do so, leading to his termination. The petitioner challenged this termination, seeking exemption from the test or an alternative appointment.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the rules governing the appointment clearly stipulated that confirmation is subject to passing necessary tests. The record confirmed that the petitioner had been provided sufficient opportunities to succeed but remained unsuccessful. Consequently, the termination was found to be in strict accordance with the mandatory procedural requirements.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether a compassionate appointee can be terminated for failure to pass a mandatory typing test, and whether the court should grant an exemption from such requirements after the petitioner failed to utilize provided opportunities.

Ratio Decidendi: Mandatory procedural conditions for confirmation under service rules serve the interest of efficient administration. When an employee is given ample opportunity to acquire the necessary qualifications for confirmation but fails to do so, the employer is justified in exercising its right to terminate the employment in compliance with established regulations.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual context of compassionate appointment. (Para 1 , 2 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. mandatory nature of departmental examinations for confirmation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. validity of termination due to failure in mandatory proficiency tests. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)

ORDER :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. The instant petition is filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

"(i) The impugned termination of order dated 19.12.2018 and order dated 05.11.2019 may be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.

(ii) That the respondents may be directed to consider Compassionate appointment of the petitioner on the post of Naib Tehsildar along with seniority with all consequential benefits.

(iii) That the respondents may be directed in future to follow the procedure of appointment as prescribed in the rules of 1996 and guidelines as per which the state list be prepared and the appointment be given strictly on comparative merit as per the date of application and eligibility of dependents.

(iv) Any other order or direction the Hon'ble Court may deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favor of the humble petitioners."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner himself have argued the matter, and submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 1996'), as amended from time to time, in place of his father, Shri Babulal Sharma, who expired on 20th June 2005 while working as Ayurvedic Doctor. The services of the petitioner was terminated on 19-12-2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is having educational qualifications of LLB and CA Intermediate and eligible for appointment on the post of Nayab Tehsildar / Legal Advisor / AAP or any other post, but he was appointed by the respondents on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC). He further submits that the petitioner was directed to qualify typing test, which is an outdated practice in present times. He also submits that the service of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that the petitioner has failed to qualify the typing test. He also submits that the petitioner is entitled for exemption from the typing test or alternatively entitled for opportunity to clear the typing test.

4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and they have referred order dated 04.03.2016 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.390/2016 (Rajesh Kumar Pandey Vs. State & Anr.)

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed under the Rules of 1996 and as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner was required to clear such training or departmental examination or typing test within a period of three years for entitlement for confirmation, failing which his appointment shall liable to be terminated.

7. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996 is reproduced for ready reference:-

“9. Procedural Requirement etc.- The procedural requirement for selection such as training or departmental examination or typing test shall not be insisted upon at the initial appointment. The dependants shall however, be required to clear such training or departmental examination or typing test within a period of three years for entitlement for confirmation failing which his/her appointment shall be liable to be terminated. No annual grade increments will be allowed until he/she acquires such qualifications. On acquiring such qualifications annual grade increments shall be allowed notionally from the date of appointment but no arrears shall be paid.

Provided that the widow appointed under the provisions of these rules shall be exempted from passing the typing test.”

8. Aforementioned Rule was considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Rajesh K

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top