Compassionate appointment does not create a second claim for higher post consideration once the initial benefit is accepted.

After a dependent was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on compassionate grounds following his father's death in harness, no further claim for consideration to a higher post survived on the same compassionate basis. The Court distinguished eligibility for a higher post from actual selection, and held that the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 did not permit renewed consideration once the compassionate appointment scheme had been exhausted by an accepted appointment. The direction to consider his candidature for Sub-Inspector was therefore not legally sustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the respondent had been appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on compassionate grounds, he could a further consideration for appointment to the higher post of Sub-Inspector under the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of the Government Servants (Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975.

Analysis: The respondent's claim for compassionate appointment arose from his father's death in harness. His application was considered and he was appointed as LDC, which he accepted. Once the compassionate appointment scheme had been worked out and the claim had culminated in appointment, no second or further claim on the same compassionate ground survived. The distinction between eligibility for a higher post and actual selection for that post remained material, and the proviso to Rule 5 did not justify a renewed consideration for appointment as Sub-Inspector after the compassionate benefit had already been granted.

Conclusion: The further direction for consideration of the respondent's candidature for the post of Sub-Inspector was not legally sustainable and was set aside.

---