Dholpur, Distt. Dholpur v. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to Government

Judgment

1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to Government,

3. Home Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. The District Superintendent of Police, Dholpur. Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur.

4. The Dy. Inspector General of Police (H.Q.), Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner

: Mr. Anil Jain Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vishesh Sharma Advocate on behalf of Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Deputy Government Counsel. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON :: ::

20.08.2025

26.08.2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed legality and validity of order dated 19.06.2001, whereby, services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect on account of not passing the typing test despite the same being the condition of the appointment.

2. It is stated that father of the petitioner, late Shri Ramesh Chandra, was holding the substantive post of Head Constable in respondent-Police Department. However, he died [2025:RJ-JP:33281] (2 of 6) [CW-4089/2001] while in service. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application under the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘the Rules of 1996’). His application was processed by the respondents and he was granted compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father vide order dated 22.11.1997.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per appointment letter, the petitioner was required to pass typing test, yet on account of bona fide reasons, he could not appear in the typing test and qualify the same. It was submitted that as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996, at least three opportunities were required to be given, but the petitioner has availed only one opportunity. Therefore, no adverse action could have been taken against the petitioner, yet in quite arbitrary and illegal manner, services of the petitioner have been terminated vide order dated

19.06.2001.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order is not only arbitrary and illegal, but also tends to frustrate the scheme of granting compassionate appointment which was objected to provide financial support to the family, which has lost its bread earner. On the one hand, the respondents have granted financial support to petitioner's family by way of extending benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner, on the other hand, such financial support has been taken away by terminating services of the petitioner within a period of 3½ years. After termination, the petitioner and his family has no means of livelihood and they have been left to starve. [2025:RJ-JP:33281] (3 of 6) [CW-4089/2001]

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition stating that the compassionate appointment was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 22.11.1997, after appreciating emergent requirement of the family. Although, such appointment was granted without asking the incumbent to participate in any recruitment examination, yet sufficient time was granted to the person appointed as clerk to pass typing test, which is otherwise a necessary requirement for recruitment through regular process.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that appointment order dated 22.11.1997 was explicitly clear wherein the petitioner was required to pass typing test within a period of 6 months from the date of appointment, failing which his services were liable to be terminated. Learned counsel for the respondents adds that despite completion of 6 months, when the petitioner could not pass the requisite typing test, he was granted so many opportunities to participate in the typing test. It has been submitted that the typing test is conducted by the Department of Languages in quite regular manner as also at frequent intervals.

7. The petitioner, for initially 2½ years after his appointment, did not even participate in the process and later on, appeared in the typing test conducted by the Department of Languages first time on 30.04.2000, in which he remained unsuccessful. Again Department of Languages invited the candidates for similar typing test to be conducted on 05.12.2000 and the petitioner was also informed in this regard, yet quite deliberately, he did not appear in the typing test conducted on

05.12.2000 and remained willfully absent from 04.12.2000 to [2025:RJ-JP:33281] (4 of 6) [CW-4089/2001]

12.12.2000. Thus, despite lapse of more than 3 years and 7 months, the petitioner could not qualify the typing test and having no other alternative, vide impugned order, the services of the petitioner were terminated.

8. I have examined the record and carefully heard the submissions put forward by learned counsel for the parties.

9. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996 lays down as under: “9. Procedural requirement etc.- The procedural requirement for selection such as,- (i) computer qualification shall not be insisted upon at the time of appointment. The dependents of the deceased Government Servant shall have to possess any of the computer qualification as prescribed in the relevant rules within the period of probation, failing which his/her probation shall be deemed to be extended, unless the appointing authority terminates his/her services finding the performance wholly unsatisfactory; (ii) training or departmental examination or typing on computer shall not be insisted upon at the time of appointment. The dependents shall however, be required to clear such training or departmental examination or typing test on computer in any one language, either in English or in Hindi, within a period of three years, unless the period is relaxed by Department of Personnel, for entitlement for confirmation, failing which his/her appointment shall be liable to be terminated. No annual grade increments will be allowed until he/she acquires such qualification. On acquiring such qualification, annual grade increments shall be allowed notionally from the date of appointment but no arrears shall be paid: Provided that the widow appointed under the provisions of these rules shall be exempted from having computer qualification and passing the typing test on computer. Provided further that the persons with disabilities appointed under the provisions of these rules shall be exempted from passing the typing test on computer. Note: For the purpose of this rule the Director, Bhasha Vibhag shall conduct typing test on computer every year irrespective of the number of candidates.”

10. The aforesaid Rule and intention of the rule making authority is quite clear. Since compassionate appointment is granted in emergent circumstances on account of sudden death of [2025:RJ-JP:33281] (5 of 6) [CW-4089/2001] sole bread earner, therefore, the procedural requirement for selection, such as training or departmental examination or typing test has been dispensed with at the initial stage and appointment is offered to cater the emergent requirement without insisting the incumbent to pass the aforesaid test or to impart training. However, the aforesaid Rule further provides that dependent of the deceased government servant, who has been granted compassionate appointment, is required to pass typing test or any other examination, as the case may be, within a period of 3 years from the date of appointment, which is also required for his confirmation, failing which, his appointment shall be liable to be terminated.

11. In the instant case, where despite giving several opportunities, the petitioner could not qualify the typing test within a period of 3 years and 7 months, the respondents have committed no mistake or illegality in terminating services of the petitioner in the light of aforesaid Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996. The petitioner has utterly failed to point out any manifest and patent illegality in the impugned order. Since in the instant case, provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996 are also not under challenge, therefore, no relief, as prayed by the petitioner, can be granted.

12. It would be relevant to refer that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Piyush Saxena Vs. The Secretary, Labour & Services Department, Jaipur & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1287/2005 decided on 25.04.2012), in similar circumstances and after examining the Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996, has held that services of a person appointed on [2025:RJ-JP:33281] (6 of 6) [CW-4089/2001] compassionate ground can be terminated on his/her failure to pass typing test within 3 years. This Court is in complete agreement with the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Piyush Saxena (supra).

13. In view of above, writ petition filed by the petitioner, being misconceived, is, hereby, dismissed.

14. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. MANOJ NARWANI / (ANAND SHARMA),J