BHUPENDRA PANDYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging validity of suspension order dated 13.01.2014 (Annex.3) passed by the Registrar, Co-operative societies, Jaipur while exercising the power under Rule 39(4) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2003'].

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 39(4) of the Rules of 2003, the Registrar cannot pass an order to place the employee of the society under suspension but order impugned has been passed by the Registrar. The petitioner who is working on the post of Acting Manager. The Registrar is having power to direct the committee of the society to place any employee under suspension but here in this case the Registrar himself has exercised power under rule 39(4) of the Government Servant Rules, 1996. The application of petitioner was considered but rejected on the ground that though petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1996 but he is having more than two children, therefore, in view of notification dated 29.10.2005, not eligible for appointment on the post in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rules of 1996 were promulgated by the welfare State for welfare of the family of deceased employee and those rules have overriding effect over other service rules, therefore, purposely, in the notification dated 29.10.2005, Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 were not included in the list meaning the said amendment made in various service rules vide notification dated 29.10.2005 for denial of appointment in the event of having more than two children after 01.06.2002 is not applicable. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to provide bread and butter to the family of deceased employee but here in this case, un-necessary hurdle is being created by the respondent department to deny appointment, therefore, communication dated 18.07.2014 may be quashed and respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground ignoring the notification dated 29.10.2005 whereby, an amendment was made to deny appointment to candidates having more than two children born Rules of 2003 and placed the petitioner under suspension, therefore, the order impugned is without jurisdiction.