SURAJ KUMAR VERMA Vs. RAJASTHAN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common question of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, hence with the consent of counsel for both the sides, these matters are taken up for final disposal and both these petitions are decided by this common order.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner Kusumlata is that her husband and father of the petitioner Suraj Kumar Verma died while in service on 28/4/2004. Immediately after death of the husband, the petitioner Kusumlata submitted an application before the respondents for getting appointment on compassionate grounds. Counsel submits that when no order were passed by the respondents the petitioner Kusumlata approached this Court by way of filing SB Civil Writ Petition No.1859/2007 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dtd. 23/5/2011 and the respondents were directed to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. Counsel submits that the said order was challenged by the respondents before the Division Bench of this Court by way of filing DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1079/2011 and the said appeal was disposed of vide order dtd. 15/2/2012 indicating therein to consider the case of the petitioner Kusumlata for appointment on compassionate grounds and in case any deficiency is found in her application the same may be cured or rectified within a time frame. Counsel submits that in compliance of the order passed by the Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court the respondents passed an order on 27/2/2012 granting appointment to the petitioner Kusumlata on the post of Class-IV employee. Counsel submits that the petitioner Kusumlata showed her inability to join the service on account of health reasons, hence she submitted an application before the respondents to consider the case of her son Suraj Kumar Verma for appointment on compassionate grounds. Counsel submits that the application filed by the petitioner Kusumlata was taken into account and it was found that the son Suraj Kumar Verma was minor and he had not attained the age of 18 years, hence the matter was kept in abeyance for consideration for his appointment at appropriate stage after his attaining the age of majority. Counsel submits that when the petitioner Suraj Kumar Verma attained the age of majority i.e. 18 years a request was made to the respondents to consider his case for appointment. Counsel submits that at this time the respondents refused to offer appointment to the petitioner Suraj Kumar Verma by giving reference of Rule 6 (2) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short the 'Rules of 1996'). Counsel submits that the respondents were not having any authority to decline appointment to both mother and son. The respondents could have considered the case of either the mother or the son for appointment on compassionate grounds. Counsel submits that the respondents are bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Once the promise has been made by them to consider the case of her son at appropriate stage, then they cannot take u-turn to deny appointment to the son of the petitioner Kusumalata on the count that earlier the mother was given appointment but she has shown her inability to join offered post, therefore, appointment cannot be denied to the petitioner Suraj Kumar Verma. In support of his contentions he has place reliance upon the following judgments:

(3.) Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted and appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to consider the case of either of the petitioners for appointment on the compassionate grounds. Submissions by the respondents: