DHARMENDRA PARTH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER the provisions of Rules called Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rule, 1975 (herein after called `rules, 1975') one of the dependent of Government servant who dies, while in service is entitled to make application for the purpose of giving a suitable employment in Government Service against the existing vacancy in relaxation of normal recruitment rules, provided such member of family fulfils educational qualification prescribed for the post and is also otherwise qualified for the post. In case the vacancy is not available, in that situation the application is to be considered immediately on availability of the post as provided under Rule 5-A of the Rules, 1975. UNDER Rule 10 of the Rules, 1975 where the deceased Govt. servant was holding a subordinate service post, a member of his family may be considered for appointment to a lowest post of subordinate Service/ministerial Service/class IV service which is filled by direct recruitment according to his eligibility. Sub clause (e) of the Rule 10 further provides that if the dependent possesses specialised qualification like degree in Engineering and/ or Technology, degree in Medicine, Degree in Veterinary Science etc. , such dependent shall be appointed to the lowest post in the State Service in the respective discipline, coming under the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission irrespective of the rank and status of the deceased Government servant subject to fulfilment of qualifications prescribed for the post. The Government had further clarified by issuing instructions vide circular No. F. 3 (6)/dop/a-II/75, dated 1. 4. 89. The relevant portion of the circular is reproduced as under:- " (A) In supersession of this department order of even number dated 4th Nov. , 1985 and 29. 9. 87, the State Government hereby lay down the following principles and procedure under rule 10 of the above Rules to be strictly followed by the various Appointing Authority while considering cases of appointment of a member of the family of Government Servants Dying While in service. " " (b) When the Deceased is a Subordinate Service Employee - In cases where the deceased Government servant was holding a Subordinate Service post, a member of his family may be considered for appointment to a lowest post of Subordinate Service/ministerial Service/class IV service which is filled by direct recruitment according to his eligibility. " " (e) When the Dependent possesses Specialised Qualifications, in cases where the the dependent of a deceased Government servant possesses specialised qualifications like Degree in Engineering and/or Technology, Degree in Medicine, Degree in Veterinary Science etc. such dependent shall be appointed to the lowest post in the State Service in the respective discipline, coming under the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission irrespective of the rank and status of the deceased Government servant subject to fulfilment of qualifications prescribed for the post. "

(2.) THE petitioner had qualified as Bachelor of Engineering (Computer) from Amravati University in the year 1990, having obtained the degree on 19. 6. 92 (Ann. 8 ). THE father of petitioner late Laxmi Chandra Parth had died, while serving in State Government as Teacher, on 15. 8. 91. THE death certificate has been annexed as annexure-1. THE petitioner was dependent. THE deceased had left behind his widow, four sons and five daughters. THE other members of family had no objection for giving appointment to petitioner as per his qualification. THE petitioner had applied for the suitable post in accordance with his specialised qualification, but the respondent instead of accommodating him on suitable post according to his qualification had asked him to accept the post of Lower Division Clerk or a Asstt. Teacher which was not acceptable to petitioner. THE petitioner submitted that under the rules he can be offered the post of Asstt. Engineer (Computer) and the post of LDC or Asstt. Post of Teacher is not suitable to his qualification. THE petitioner even was prepared to accept some other post of equivalent pay scale, which was invariably being done by the department in number of other cases, but in no case the petitioner was accepting the post of clerk and that to a post of LDC. In my opinion, the petitioner was right in rejecting such an offer in view of the specific Rules, 1975 as applicable during that time read with circulars issued by the department. It is true that the State has framed the Rules which have got force of law to assist the dependants of deceased Government servant, but simultaneously the State has issued circulars in this regard to say that the post should be offered invariably befitting to the qualification possessed by such dependent. A medical Doctor cannot be offered a job of clerk and and Engineer Cannot be asked to join as Asstt. Teacher. If an Architechture is asked to work as a clerk or as a teacher; that would not only be improper but would also be suffocating; the specialised qualification are bound to go waste. THE State was aware of such situation, and therefore, instructions had been issued in this regard, but despite existance of such instructions, it is not know as to why the respondents instead of considering the case of petitioner for a suitable post as per acquired qualification asked the petitioner to join as a clerk or Asstt. Teacher. THE petitioner could only serve and utilise his qualification well efficiently in the field he was qualified instead of LDC or Teacher.

(3.) SIMILARLY the reliance has been placed on the judgment in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others (4), The case also does not help the respondents, firstly there are no such rules applicable in State of Haryana, secondly the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal was that the compassionate employment cannot be granted after lapse of reasonable period. The facts of the present case are distinguishable from the judgments cited by counsel for respondent, for the reason that the dispute involved in the present case is whether the petitioner was entitled to a suitable job according to his specialised qualifications and as per circular of Government itself.