NITESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition while claiming the following reliefs:

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that father of the petitioner Shri Suresh Kumar Singhi, who was working as Veterinary Assistant in the Office of Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Sirohi, has died on 04.02.2009 in a road accident. After the death of Suresh Kumar Singhi, mother of the petitioner moved an application on 18.02.2009 under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996' hereinafter) and made a prayer to appoint the petitioner on the post of Lower Division Clerk. It is to be noted that on 18.02.2009, under the relevant rules, the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of LDC was Secondary pass and the petitioner is possessing the same. The application so made, was forwarded by the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Sirohi to the Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Jaipur on 08.04.2009. The Directorate returned the said application along with certain objections, and the said objections were clarified/removed by the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Sirohi and the application of the mother of the petitioner for appointing the petitioner on the post of LDC on compassionate ground was again forwarded on 13.07.2009. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner moved representations on 30.07.2009 and 28.08.2009 and requested the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner on the post of LDC on compassionate ground. However, nothing had been done by the respondents till the petitioner had received a letter dated 01.11.2010 from the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Sirohi, whereby the petitioner was informed that as the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of LDC has been raised from Secondary to Senior Secondary and other equivalent qualifications and, therefore, the petitioner should apply for the post for which he is eligible. Then the petitioner had submitted a certificate of 12th pass, which is equivalent to Senior Secondary, issued by Jamiya Urdu Aligarh, however, the respondents informed the petitioner that the said qualification is not recognized and, therefore, the petitioner could not be provided appointment on the post of LDC. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application and requested for appointment on the post of Class-IV Employee in the Animal Husbandry Department. The Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Sirohi forwarded the said application of the petitioner to the Directorate, Animal Husbandry Department while stating that no post of Class-IV Employee is vacant in the said office. Thereafter on 28.06.2011, the Deputy Director wrote a letter to the petitioner and informed him that the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Jodhpur gave a direction that since no post of Class-IV Employee is vacant in Jodhpur Division, the petitioner be appointed on the post of Jaldhari/Safaikarta and, therefore, the petitioner should submit his consent for appointment on the post of Jaldhari. It is claimed by the petitioner that under compulsion, he gave the consent in writing to the respondents for appointment on the post of Jaldhari. The Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Jodhpur therefore, issued a letter dated 12.07.2011 and directed the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Pali to provide the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Jaldhari in any of the Veterinary Hospital, names of which are mentioned in the letter dated 12.07.2011.

(3.) A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is claimed that in the case of compassionate appointment, eligibility of a person is to be seen on the date of appointment and not on the date when the application for compassionate appointment was preferred. It is contended that since the petitioner is not possessing the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of LDC, he cannot be provided appointment on the said post. It is further claimed that the appointment was provided to the petitioner on the post of Jaldhari/Safaikarta but the petitioner had withdrawn his consent for appointment on the post of said post and, therefore, now the appointment cannot be provided to the petitioner on any post.