JAYANT KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge (P. P. Naolekar, J.) in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3978/2000, dated, 1. 9. 2000, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground of delay in applying for compassionate appointment.

(2.) THE appellant's father who was a Teacher Gr. III in the Education Department of Government of Rajasthan died on 24. 6. 94 while in Government service. THE appellant was born on 21. 4. 1981 and at the time of his father's death, it is stated that he was about 13 years and 2 months. He attained majority on 21. 4. 99. According to the appellant, he passed the Senior Higher Secondary Examination on 24. 6. 1998 and has submitted an application for compassionate appointment on the post of Teacher. By order dated 21. 8. 98, the appellant was informed by the Deputy Inspector of Education (Primary), Kekri, Ajmer, that the application by the appellant should have been filed within 45 days from the date of death of his father and since his application was belated, the same cannot be considered. THEreupon, the appellant received a communication on 16. 2. 99, wherein he was required to send his application for compassionate appointment through District Education Officer (Elementary-I), Ajmer. According to the appellant, the only requirement as per order dated, 16. 2. 99 was to send the form through proper channel. Since there was no response to his application, he sent a notice for demand of justice and there upon file writ petition before this court which had been dismissed by the order dated. 1. 9. 2000.

(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The Supreme Court in many cases has decided that the consideration for compassionate appointment is not a vested right and such right cannot be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis and that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered whatsoever, long lapse of time and after the crisis is over. In our opinion, a writ of mandamus cannot be claimed and issued contrary to what is provided in the rules. Dependents of the deceased Government servant do not stand to acquire any right of employment nor does any such right accrued to them by mere death of such Government servant and, therefore, they cannot claim it as a matter of right. The law is well settled that whenever an Act is repealed, it must be considered, except as to transactions passed and closed, as if it had never existed. The effect of repeal vide rule 15 in the present case was to obliterate the rule of 1975 completely from the rule book as if it had never been framed and it never existed, except to the extent of actions which were initiated, taken and concluded while the Rules of 1975 were existing. In the instant case, the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot at all be countenanced. His request for consideration afresh under the Rules of 1975 cannot, at all be appreciated. Present Rules of 1996 provide for limitation to submit application within 45 days of death of the government servant. Since the application has been made beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act, the appellant cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground. WE also hold that no appointment can be given under a repealed law, since the rule making authorities intended not to give appointment under the old rules as well as right of consideration of the appellant is not saved. Courts have held that mere death of an employee does not entitle appointment on compassionate ground and that the application should be made within the time prescribed under the Rules and the long delay in seeking appointment disentitles appointment on compassionate grounds and since the appointment can be given subject to qualification and availability of vacancy.