HEMANT CHOUHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by V. G. Palshikar, J. in the writ petition, by which the appellant/petitioner sought improvement of the position.

(2.) THE short facts are that on the death of the appellant's father, who was serving as Senior Commercial Taxation Officer, Circle-III, Jodhpur, when he expired on 26. 9. 91, the appellant's mother applied to the respondents for providing him appointment commesurate with his qualification under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Govt. Servants (Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 (for short `the Rules of 1975' hereinafter ). According to the appellant, he is possessed of Degree in Science Mathematics and Post-graduate degree in M. A. English Literature when application was sent for providing him appointment in place of his father on compassionate ground. THE appellant was informed that in view of the instructions contained in the letter dated 1. 4. 89, he can be appointed on the post of Commercial Taxation Inspector (Subordinate Service) and not on the post of Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer. THE appellant was asked by the aforesaid letter that he may state whether he is desirous of being appointed on the post of Commercial Taxation Inspector or not. In pursuance of this letter, the appellant submitted his acceptance letter but under protest reserving his right to assail the validity of such action of the respondents. THE appellant again submitted another application on 18. 8. 91 stating that Shri Ketan Sharma, Miss Anita Khatri and Miss Anita Mathur have been given appointments on the post of Assistant Commercial Taxation Officers under the Rules of 1975 and, therefore, they were appointed after the aforesaid instructions came into effect on 1. 4. 89, the appellant should also be considered for appointment to the said higher post. However, the respondents have denied the appointment on the post of Commercial Taxation inspector in terms of the guidelines of the above letter. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 26. 8. 91, the appellant preferred the writ petition for the reliefs claimed thereunder.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Sangeet Lodha in reply submitted that the question of reconsideration and for giving further appointment to the appellant on the post of Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer does not arise at all and moreover, there is no such provision in the Rules of 1975. He would further submit that the action on the part of respondents do not tend to violate any fundamental right or constitutional right of the appellant guaranteed by the Constitution when the appointment itself is on compassionate grounds and, therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to lay a further claim for appointment on the higher post. It is further submitted that since the appel- lant has accepted the appointment, he cannot now resile back from his acceptance and ask for consideration of his name for a higher post. Mr. Sangeet Lodha, in support of his contention, placed reliance on the following four rulings of the Supreme Court:- AIR 1994 SC 845 (1 ). 1994 (4) SCC 138 JT 1996 (6) SC 7 (3) and JT 1994 (6) SC 372, (4)