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
| 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 He further submits that the petitioner was directed to qualify typing test, which is an outdated practice in present times.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
Petitioner cannot claim reversion or fresh appointment on a post which he had not held at the time of appointment under Rules, 1974.
The court ruled that amendments to the qualification rules for LDCs eliminate the requirement for a type test for compassionate appointees who have acquired necessary computer proficiency.
The issuance of a final notice to a dependent of a deceased Government employee, directing them to take a lower post after they have acquired the requisite qualification, is illegal and cannot be sus....
Rule 9 reads as Procedural Requirement etc.
Compassionate appointments for dependants must adhere to rules applicable at the time of the breadwinner's death, ensuring immediate assistance in times of financial crisis.
Compassionate appointments must be based on qualifications applicable at the time of application, and once an appointment is made, further claims for higher posts are not permitted.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.