1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
O R D E R
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1222/1997
(Yashwant Kumar Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
.........
Date of Order : 06/01/2009
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR
Mr. A.K.Rajvanshy for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S.Ladrecha, Govt. Counsel for the respondent.
BY THE COURT
By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondents to appoint him on the post of Teacher Gr.III.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner’s father Shri Punam Chand Soni was Freedom
Fighter and died on 25.11.1991 and the petitioner is
unemployed, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for appointment
under the Rajasthan Freedom Fighters Aid Rules, 1959 (for short
‘the Rules of 1959’ hereinafter). Learned counsel for the
petitioner has invited my attention to Rule 12 (5) of the Rules of
1959.
2
Rule 12 of the Rules of 1959 reads as under:-
“12. Employment in Government Service
etc.- (1) A person who lost Government
service in the circumstances specified in clause
(d) of Rule 3 will be eligible to re-employment
in Government service if he is below fifty-five
years of age.
(2) Such person may be granted with
retrospective effect from the date of the
termination of his service such proportionate
pension or gratuity or both as would have been
admissible to him on that date according to the
Rules to which he was then subject as if he
had been compulsorily retired on and from that
on grounds of ill health.
(3) A civil pensioner whose pension was
forfeited in any of the circumstances specified
in clause (d) of rule 3 will be restored his
pension with retrospective effect from the date
on which the forfeiture took effect.
(4) Except as provided in sub-rule (5) no claim
for any relief under this rule shall be
entertained if made by any dependent, heir or
successor of a political sufferer.
(5) If a person who lost Government service in
the circumstances specified in clause (d) of
rule 3 has since died or is more than fifty-five
years of age or has become infirm and unfit for
Government service, the State Government
may provide suitable employment in
Government service to any two of such
3
person’s dependents or, if there be no
dependent in existence to any one of his heirs
if it is satisfied of the existence of acute
distress for want of such employment.”
Sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1959 provides
that If a person who lost Government service in the
circumstances specified in clause (d) of rule 3 has since died or
is more than fifty-five years of age or has become infirm and
unfit for Government service, the State Government may provide
suitable employment in Government service to any two of such
person’s dependents or, if there be no dependent in existence to
any one of his heirs if it is satisfied of the existence of acute
distress for want of such employment. Clause (d) of Rule 3 of
the Rules of 1959 provides that loss of Government service by
dismissal, discharge, forced resignation on grounds connected
with political movement or for association with or participation in
a political movement or on the grounds of association or
relationship with a person participating in a political movement
or engaged in any activity connected with political movement.
In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner’s father was neither
in Govt. service nor had lost the Govt. service by dismissal,
discharge, forced resignation on grounds connected with political
movement or for association with or participation in a political
movement or on the grounds of association or relationship with a
4
person participating in a political movement or engaged in any
activity connected with political movement. Thus, the condition
precedent for providing the employment under Rule 12 (5) of the
Rules of 1959 is not fulfilled. It may be that the petitioner’s
father was political worker and freedom fighter, however after
the Independence, he himself joined the Government service
and therefore, the question of loss of Govt. service by dismissal,
discharge, forced resignation on grounds connected with political
movement or for association with or participation in a political
movement or on the grounds of association or relationship with a
person participating in a political movement or engaged in any
activity connected with political movement, does not arise.
However, the petitioner applied for the post and competed, his
case was considered and was not found meritorious and in reply
the State came with a case that no person less meritorious than
the petitioner has been selected. Thus, it is not the case of the
petitioner that less meritorious person than the petitioner has
been selected. More so, the merit list came to an end on
31.03.1997 for the interviews for the Session 1996-97.
In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in
the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
(H.R.PANWAR), J.
rp
5
S.B.CIVIL MISC. STAY PETITION NO. 1025/1997
IN
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1222/1997
Date of Order : 06/01/2009
HON’BLE MR. H.R.PANWAR, J.
Mr. A.K.Rajvanshy for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S.Ladrecha, Govt. Counsel for the respondent.
Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the
stay petition also stands dismissed.
(H.R.PANWAR), J.
rp