LAWS(RAJ)-2002-1-97

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. AJAY SHARMA

Decided On January 16, 2002
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Appellant
V/S
AJAY SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT herein was given an appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of the Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975, (for short "The Rules of 1975). The appointment order was issued in his favour for the post of Programmer on 23.3.1990 and at that time, the post of Programmer was not included in any set of Rules and it appears that it must have been created as an ex cadre post. While the respondent was continuing as Programmer on the basis of appointment order dated 23.3.1990 the Rajasthan Computer State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1992 (for short `The Rules of 1992') were promulgated on 5.1.1993. The question, therefore, arose as to how the respondent could become a member of service? Under the Rajasthan Computer State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1992, he was subjected to screening under rule 6(1)(ii) and was found to be suitable.

(2.) IN our opinion it was not necessary to subject him to screening proviso (ii) under rule 6(1-A) of 1992 rules, he was recruited to the post under the rules of 1975 and the rules of 1975 have an overriding effect and as such he has to be treated as a member of service u/R. 5(b) of 1992 rules. It has already been held by a Division Bench (in which one of us M.R. Calls, J. was a member) of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 130/93 decided on 5.11.1993 that appointees on compassionate grounds are regular appointees. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the respondent held a regular appointment under the rules of 1975 and therefore he could become a member of service under rules of 1992 under rule 5(b) but the directions as have been given by him in the matter of assigning seniority to the respondent may render number of existing employees to be junior to him merely because the respondent got a regular appointment on compassionate grounds under the rules of 1975 and therefore the question of seniority has engaged our attention in this appeal.