JUDGMENT
B.R. Arora, J.
1. The petitioners, by this writ petition, have prayed that the respondents may be directed to give appointment to the petitioner No. 1, viz., Rajendra Singh, on the post of Driver in the Animal Husbandry Department of the respondents under the provisions of the Rajasthan (Recruitment of the Dependents of Government Servant Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975. The case of the petitioner is that late (Shri) Jas Raj S/o Shri Nawal Singh, was serving as Compunder in the Animal Husbandry Department. While in service, Jas Raj breathed his last on 30.6.1965 at the age of the 40 years. Petitioner No. 2 Smt. Pooni Devi is the widow of Jas Raj and Jas Raj has three daughters who all are married now. The deceased has no son and, therefore, the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Pooni Devi adopted the petitioner No. 1 Rajendra Singh on 23.7.1992. After the adoption of petitioner No. 1, the petitioner moved an application on 23.7.92 for giving him appointment under the Rules, 1975, but the petitioner No. 1 was not given any appointment.
2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 Rajendra Singh is the adopted son of late Jas Raj and being an adopted son he is a member of the family of the deceased employee and even in the case where no family member of the deceased employee is there then the appointment can be given to a person nominated by the widow of the deceased and, therefore, the petitioner No. 1 Rajendra Singh is entitled for seeking appointment under the Rules, 1975, and as such the respondents may be directed to provide appointment to the petitioner No. 1 in support of its case learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over: Nathu Ram Rao and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1891 of 1993 – decided on 17.5.93.
3. I have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties.
4. Rule 5 of the Rules, 1975, provides that in case of a deceased government servant, one member of his family, who is not already employed under the Central or the State Government or a Statutory Board or Organisation or Corporation, owned and controlled by the Central or State Government, shall on making an application for the purpose, be given a suitable employment in government service without delay only against an existing vacancy which is not within the purview of the State Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal requirements of the Rules, provided the member fulfills the educational qualification prescribed under the Rules and is, also, otherwise qualified for being given employment in Government service. The family’ has been defined in Rule 2(1) of the Rules, which means the family of the deceased Government servant and shall include the widow of the husband, sons and widow daughter(s) and son’s son or daughter adopted according to the provisions of the law by the deceased Government servant, who were dependent on the deceased Government servant. Thus, the adopted son fails within the definition of the word ‘family’ and can be given appointment. In the present case, it is so be seen whether the adoption has been made in accordance with the Rules or not? Petitioner No. 1 Rajendra Singh was not adopted by the deceased Government employee during his life-time. The age of the petitioner No. l is only 18 years where Jas Raj (the deceased Government servant) who was serving with the department, died in the year 1965, i.e., more than ten years before the birth of the petitioner No. l. The result of adoption is that the petitioner No. l became a member of the family of the deceased government servant only from the date of his birth and not from a date earlier thereto. On the relevant date when the death of Jas Raj look place, the petitioner No. 1 Rajendra Singh was not even born and, therefore, he cannot be said to be a dependent of the deceased Government servant. As the petitioner No. 1 was not the dependent of the deceased Government servant on the relevant date, therefore, he is not entitled for being given appointment under the provisions of the Rules, 1975, as the provisions of this Rules are not applicable in the case of the petitioner No. l.
5. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.