MADAN SINGH PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FATHER of the petitioner Shri Rawat Singh Parihar died on 5.4.1962 while he was employed as Forester in the Forest Department of State of Rajasthan. The petitioner who has studied upto Higher Secondary and has passed his Higher Secondary Examination, 1 979 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, applied for a suitable appointment in the Forest Department under the Rajasthan (Recruitment of the Dependents of Govt. Servants Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975. Vide letter dated 1.5.1991, petitioner was informed that it is not possible to give him appointment under the rules of ,1975 presumably under the impression that the rules of 1975 are not applicable to the dependents of a Govt. Servant who died before 1.9.1 972 in view of the provisions of Rule 2(e) of the rules of 1975. Another Communication dated 6.4.91 was sent to the petitioner stating that appointment is not possible to be given to him because presently no post of Forestor is vacant under the Sirohi Forest Division against which he can be appointed.

(2.) WHILE petitioner was conveyed that his application is not being considered and there is no vacancy of the post of Forester, in reply filed to show cause notices, it has been stated that since brothers of the petitioner are already in Govt. service and they have been so employed in the Govt. service after the date of death of petitioner's father, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for appointment under the rules of 1975. It has also been pleaded in the return that when admittedly petitioner has passed his Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1979, why he has not applied prior to 1991 and, therefore, the petitioner is disentitled to any relief.

(3.) HAVING considered the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that petitioner's application cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he moved an application for appointment in 1 991. This is a fact that until this Court held cut -off date fixed in Rule 2(e) of the rules of 1975 as ultravires, petitioner could not have expected his application to be entertain under the rules. The petitioner moved an application only after he had come across the judgment in Shashi Kant's case (supra). Even the Govt. has issued Circular for considering cases of such employees who led prior to 2.9.1972 only after judgment in Shashi Kant's case (supra). In view of these facts, I overrule the objection on the ground of laches raised by the respondents against entertaining the petition.