IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN,

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 27284/2018

Rakesh Kumar

PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Rajasthan and Ors.

RESPONDENTS

REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 3

TO,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES

OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASHTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS.

The humble Respondents, above named, most respectfully submit

as under: -

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

1. That the allegations of the Petitioner, which are inconsistent with

what is averred herein, are denied and that nothing in the Petition

should be deemed to be admitted by the respondents and are denied

ad-verbatim as, the petitioner has moulded the facts and has tried

to mislead this honourable court. Furthermore, he has not followed

the procedural requirements to claim the appointment on

compassionate grounds and the legitimacy of the petitioner is also

 not proved in the petition itself. The averments made in this petition

are alternative and without prejudice to one another and hence,

deserved to be dismissed by this honourable court prima facie on

the subsequent grounds mentioned below.

2. That in the instant case, the Petitioner had made the application

dated 18.05.2015, therein claiming compassionate appointment

after the demise of his father and he has claimed this as a matter of

his right. Here it is worthwhile to mention that the Hon’ble Apex

Court has already settled this position of law that the

Compassionate Appointment does not constitute a reservation of a

post in favour of the member of the family of the deceased employee.

It cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The compassionate

appointment is exception to the general rule of recruitment. The

object and purpose providing the compassionate appointment is to

enable the dependent members of the family of the deceased

employee to tie over the immediate financial crises caused by the

death of the bread-earner. In determining as to whether the family

is in financial crises, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind

including the terminal benefits received by the family; the age,

dependency and marital status of its members, together with the

income from any other sources of employment and for such

determination, the details sought is required to be given in the

application as provided under the concerned provisions of the Rules

of 1996. Therefore, it cannot confer benediction impelled by

sympathetic considerations to make appointments on

compassionate grounds as a matter of statutory right when the

regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplate

such appointments.
 In UNION OF INDIA & ANR. VS. SHASHANK GOSWAMI & ANR., (2012)

11 SCC, 307, the Supreme Court held thus:

There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that the claim

for appointment on compassionate grounds is based on the premise

that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly,

such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of

the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as

reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in

the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while

in service. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed

as a matter of right.

In the instant case, no justification has been given and no

documents have been attached which suggest that there is any

financial or sudden crisis in the family to claim the appointment on

compassionate ground and further it cannot be claimed as a matter

of right and no one should harbour or nurture an idea that he has

a vested right or he has a hereditary right. Rather, the Petitioner has

merely made vague and untenable claims of financial crisis, which

are not backed by any cogent evidence or proof, documentary or

otherwise. As such, the same are not admissible. Therefore, it is not

a statutory right of the petitioner which is being violated by the

concerned authorities. In view of this, the petition is not

maintainable prima facie and dissolved to be disposed.

3. That, it was noted in UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL V. STATE OF

HARYANA (1994) 4 SCC 138, as a rule, public service appointment

should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of

applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground

is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the

aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death

of the employee while in service leaving his family without any

means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family

to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointments on

compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the

rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into

consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.

Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the

fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family

would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made for

giving gainful appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased

who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes

a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment

on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such a

provision enables appointment being made without following the

said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general

provisions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision to

which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by

taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision.

Care has, therefore, to be taken that a provision for grant of

compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception

to the general provisions, does not unduly interfere with the right of

other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment

against the post which would have been available to them, but for

the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate

grounds of the dependent of a deceased employee.

But, in the instant case, if the assertion by the petitioner that he is

the son of Manakchand, there is no sudden financial crisis in the

family as, according to the succession certificate attached by the

petitioner (Annexure 10 of the petition), he is entitled to a hefty

 amount of Rs. 19,59,926 in relation to P.L., Gratuity dues and state

insurance of his father. The relevant portion of the aforesaid

certificate is reproduced hereunder:

अतः यह उत्तराधिकार प्रमाण-पत्र प्रार्थी राकेश कुमार के धपता स्व. श्री माणकचंद कुशवाह

के राज्य बीमा, सामान्य धिधि, ग्रैचुइटी, बकाया पी.ऐल. आधद तर्था अन्य जमा कुल राधश

19,59/926/- रुपये के सम्बन्ध मे प्रार्थी राकेश कुमार के पक्ष में उधचत न्याय शुल्क

58,800/- रुपये पर यह उत्तराधिकार प्रमाण-पत्र आज धदिां क 2/08/2018 को मेरे

हस्ताक्षर व न्यायालय की मुद्रा से जारी धकया गया

Also, as per his own submissions the petitioner himself is having a

private job, which proves that he is having some source of livelihood

and sudden financial crisis is not proved therefore. Furthermore, the

petitioner has misled this honourable court by stating in his

submissions, (in Paragraph No. 12 of the petition) that the family

has no source of income which is in direct contradiction to him being

employed in a private job which is a source of livelihood for the

family. Henceforth, this petition is not maintainable and deserves to

be dismissed by this hon’ble court only on this ground prima facie.

4. That, according to Rule 2(3) of Rajasthan Compassionate

appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules,

1996, only the legal heirs of the deceased can file an application for

the compassionate appointment. The copy of the rules is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R/1. But, in the instant case

the petitioner has not established that he is a legal heir of the

deceased. The first wife of Manakchand got separated from him and

without taking divorce from him he got married to Devi Bai and from

their wedlock they had 3 daughters and a son. But the legitimacy of

the children is disputed as the divorce and the subsequent marriage

is not proved with the proper documents.

 According to Sec. 5 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the second

marriage shall be valid only if the person has no spouse living at the

time of marriage.

Section 5 - Conditions for a Hindu marriage.-

A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the

following conditions are fulfilled, namely:-

(i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage;

Therefore, due to the non- availability of the document proving that

the divorce has been sought from the first wife, the second marriage

is void-ab-initio ipso facto.

Hence, the petitioner being a legal heir is a disputed fact and

therefore under the rules of compassionate appointment, 1996, he

cannot be given the appointment in die – harness of his father.

Rule 2(3) of Rajasthan Compassionate appointment of

Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996

“Dependents” means husband or wife, son, unmarried or widowed

daughter or a legally adopted son or a daughter, completely

dependent on deceased financially.

Therefore, the rule cited above, makes it mandatory that only the

dependents can claim the appointment on compassionate grounds.

Although, certain documents have been attached by the petitioner

but these are not the conclusive proof that the petitioner is the

legitimate son of Manakchand. In view of this, this petition deserves

to be dismissed.

5. That, certain procedure needs to be followed to give the application

for seeking the appointment on compassionate grounds. It is a

mandatory provision to be complied with.

 Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Compassionate appointment of

Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996

(1) On the demise of a government employee, the survivor wife or the

husband, shall, nominate either themselves or any other dependent,

for the appointment through an application.

(2) Subject to the provision, of Rule 2(a), the application shall be

within 45 days of the demise, submitted to the head of the

department. Along with the application, an affidavit of the monthly

income and, the no objection certificate by the other dependents and

an oath certificate by the petitioner to support the same must be

submitted. Therefore, according to the abovementioned provision,

the application should have been made by the surviving spouse but

here the application is submitted by the petitioner himself.

Therefore, the application stands to be invalid due to the non-

compliance of the procedure. The application needs to be made by

the first wife of the deceased as, the second wife was not legally

wedded to the deceased. The oath certificate and the NO Objection

certificate attached by the first wife, is not required and does not

fulfil any purpose for the said appointment. Henceforth, due to the

procedural flaw in the application made for seeking the appointment

on compassionate ground, it was dismissed by the order dt.

20.03.2018. In the above view, the instant petition is liable to be

dismissed for being vexatious and fraudulent in nature, as the

Petitioner in the instant matter has tried to misled this hon’ble

court.

6. That the petition is not maintainable against the Respondent as it

has been filed merely to harass and gain undue advantage. It is

submitted that the petitioner has been filled with ulterior motive and

mala-fide intention to cause prejudice.

 7. That the Petitioner has concealed and suppressed material and

relevant facts of the case and hence, it is an abuse of the process of

law. The Petitioner is guilty of suppression and false suggestion as

will be evident from the contentions of the case below. That the

Petition being frivolous and vexatious is liable to be dismissed under

Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Compassionate appointment of

Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 due to

non-compliance of the procedure.

PARA WISE REPLY

1. The contents of Para 1 of the writ petition are not disputed. However,

it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extra

ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court under Article 226 of the

constitution of India. It is pertinent to mention that the jurisdiction

of the court under Article 226 can be invoked only if the fundamental

or the legal rights are violated. But, in the instant case no rights are

violated as the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a

matter of right. It is an exception to the general rule of recruitment.

Therefore, the instant Petition is also liable to be dismissed from

before this Hon’ble Court, for lack of jurisdiction.

2. That the facts of para 2 are denied. It is humbly submitted that there

is no conclusive proof that how he was selected and was appointed.

No document is attached by the Petitioner justifying the same.

3. That contents of Para 3 are vehemently denied. It is submitted that

the Petitioner has failed to establish that there was no source of

income other than the salary of Manakchand. It is no where proved

that the family was in the dire need of the money and was under any
 financial crisis as the details mandatory to be provided under Rule

10 are not given. The application for appointment on Compassionate

Grounds should be submitted along with necessary certificates and

a certificate obtained stating that the family of the deceased

government servant is in indigent circumstances Furthermore,

whether the mother of petitioner Dev Bai, was a legally wedded wife

of Manakchand is also not proved. Henceforth, in the view of this,

petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. That the contents of Para 4 are denied. But the arguments raised on

behalf of the petitioner that no enquiry was made by the respondents

are denied strongly, as, his application was under the process and

the documents were being verified from the respective sources.

Moreover, the other argument raised by him regarding the order

dated 20.03.2018 thereby, rejecting his application dated

18.05.2015, having been passed without assigning any reason is

also denied vehemently because the order was passed assigning the

due reason that his candidature is being rejected due to his

ineligibility for the post. The relevant portion of the order dated

18.05.2018 is reproduced hereunder:

उपरोक्त धवषयान्तरगत लेख है की आप द्वारा अिुकम्पात्मक धियुक्तक्त हे तु प्रस्तुत प्रार्थाा िा

पत्र धदिां क 18.05.2015 पात्रता के अभाव मे अस्वीकार कर धदया गया है

5. That the contents or Para 5 are denied. It is most humbly submitted

that the arguments placed on behalf of the respondent is a mere

assertion of fact. That the petitioner is well qualified does not invest

him with a right to get the appointment on compassionate grounds.

The statutory rules do not confer any fundamental or legal right on

 any person to get the appointment as it is just an exception to the

main provision which cannot subsume the main provision.

Reference can be made for this particular argument to the case of

SMT. SUSHMA GOSAIN AND ORS. V UNION OF INDIA AND ORS,

AIR 1989 SC 1976, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:

“Compassionate appointment has no nexus with the qualification of

the person, after offer is made for appointment on any post the right

gets exhausted and there cannot be second appointment on

compassionate ground. Most importantly, compassionate

appointment is not to be made as a matter of course, it would depend

on financial condition of the family or the dependants.”

Moreover, all the relevant documents have not been attached by the

Petitioner in his petition. The documents attached by him does not

suit the purpose and hence of no value.

Therefore, in the light of above view, it is stated that this petition

deserves to be dismissed by this hon’ble court.

6. That the contents of Para 6 are factual and need no reply.

7. That the contents of Para 7 of the writ petition are replied in terms

that the petitioner, although has sent an application for seeking the

appointment on compassionate grounds but, the application is not

valid since the prescribed mandatory provision under the Rule 10 of

the Rules of 1996 provisions has not been complied with. According

to the Rule 10, the petitioner has not complied with the following:

(a) Application letter for Employment on Compassionate ground by

the deceased govt Servant’s Wife / Husband.

(b) An affidavit of the monthly income and, the no objection

certificate by the other dependents and an oath certificate by the

petitioner to support the same must be submitted.

 Therefore, due to the non-compliance of the abovementioned rules

which indicates the procedural flaw in seeking the appointment by

the petitioner and the application submitted by him stands invalid

in the eyes of law as, it is completely an abuse of the process of law.

In the above view, the petition deserves to be dismissed by this

hon’ble court.

8. That the contents of Para 8 are not disputed as, it is correctly stated

that the respondents were making the enquiry to test the

genuineness of the documents submitted by the petitioner and the

order was passed rejecting the candidature of the petitioner due to

his ineligibility for the post.

9. That the contents of Para 9 are denied in toto. The instant Petitioner

is devoid of any cause of action, and is frivolous and vexatious. It is

humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the order dated

20.03.2018 was passed after assigning a due reason that, the

petitioner is ineligible for the post of the appointment. It is no way

arbitrary or illegal as the due process of law was followed while

giving the order and hence it is a speaking order. Therefore, it is

submitted that the petitioner is trying to mislead this hon’ble court,

by placing the vague and unreasonable arguments to support his

cause. In the light of the above view, the petition deserves to be

dismissed prima facie.

10. That the contents of Para 10 are factual and need no reply.

11. That the contents of Para 11 are denied in the manner stated as

there is no conclusive proof that Manakchand obtained the divorce

 from his first wife Ramkanwari Bai as no document has been

attached justifying the same. In the petition also, only the separation

without following any due process is inferred. The affidavits and the

identity card do not fulfil the purpose of justifying that the divorce

was sought by Ramkanwari Bai from Manakchand. Due to this very

fact the second marriage with Devi Bai, if at all was even performed

in the first place, becomes void-ab–initio, according to, Section 5 of

The Hindu Marriage Act,1955. Also, there is no proof that he got

married to Dev Bai as it can be inferred from the submissions in the

petition that she only stayed with him. Therefore, the legitimacy of

the children is also doubtful pertaining to the circumstances.

Henceforth, the argument advanced by the Petitioner on the basis of

this ground declaring the order to be arbitrary is also not valid. In

the light of the above view, this petition deserves to be dismissed.

12. That the contents of para 12 are vehemently denied. The respondent

would like to draw the attention of this hon’ble court that in this

very paragraph itself, the petitioner has contradicted himself by

stating on one hand that the family has no source of income while

on the other hand it is stated that he has a private job. Also, it is

pertinent to note that having the job means that the source of

livelihood is available for the family. Therefore, is submitted that the

petitioner has moulded the facts and is trying to mislead this hon’ble

court. Also, no document regarding the income of the petitioner is

provided which does not justify his statement that his salary is petty.

Moreover, according, to the succession certificate, they are entitled

to a hefty amount of around 20 lacs. This shows that there is no

financial crisis in the family and does not require the grant of
 compassionate appointment. In light of this, the petition deserves to

be dismissed on this ground alone by this hon’ble court.

13. That the contents of para 13 are denied in toto. It is humbly

submitted that the argument of the petitioner is vague and irrelevant

as no documents have been attached to prove that the posts of class-

III employee are lying vacant. A mere assertion on the behalf of the

petitioner does not give a conclusive proof. Moreover, even if there

are vacancies, appointment is to be made on merit so that a suitable

person can be appointed.

14. That the contents of para 14 are vehemently denied. The petitioner

by stating him to be a pauper is trying to mislead this hon’ble court.

There’s no sudden and immediate crisis in the family which can

spoil their whole life. Apart from this, the application of the

Petitioner was kept pending as stated earlier for the reason of

verification from the respective sources to know the genuineness of

the documents which needs to be put through. Moreover, the

administrative order passed is not illegal and arbitrary but, passed

on the ground of his ineligibility for the post. Also, the fundamental

rights of the petitioner are not violated in any sense since, the

appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right and

cannot be claimed as such. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld

on touchstone of Article 14 or Article 21. Therefore, at the outset it

is submitted that the instant Petition is devoid of all merit and

hence, all the allegations levelled therein are denied in entirety.

15. That the contents on para 15 are denied in toto. The petitioner is

having a private job as stated by him, and therefore, the submission

that the family is living in poverty without any source of livelihood

 is absolutely infructuous. The petitioner has made the contradicting

submissions in his petition which is highly bad in the eyes of law as

he is trying to mislead this hon’ble court by playing a victim card. In

the above view, the petition deserves to be dismissed prima facie.

GROUNDS

A. That the contents of para A are vehemently denied. The order

deserves to be upheld as it is passed after assigning the due reason,

that the petitioner is ineligible for the post. And, this reason is

sufficient to reject his candidature.

B. That the contents of para B are denied vehemently. The order is not

vague and cryptic but passed after following the due process of law

and assigning the appropriate reason that the candidature is being

rejected due to ineligibility.

C. That the contents of para C are false. The compassionate

appointment is not a matter of right and hence the order passed

after assigning the due reason deserves to be upheld. This is false to

state that the reason is not given. But, in the instant case,

ineligibility is stated as a reason for the same and therefore, it is a

speaking order, assigning the due reason for rejecting the

candidature.

D. That the contents of para D are disavowed. The order has been

passed after following the due process of law and after the proper

verification of the documents. The Petitioner was given the

reasonable time to submit the documents and thereafter, only with

proper verification of the documents, the order has been passed.

E. That the contents of para E are disaffirmed. There is no conclusive

proof given by the petitioner that many appointments are made on

the compassionate ground. And, even if, the appointments are made

by the respondents, there must be some intelligible differentia for

the same. The appointments are made on the basis of merits and

since, petitioner being ineligible for the same has been rejected for

the post. Henceforth, there in no violation of fundamental right as

the appointments on compassionate ground cannot be upheld on

touchstone of Article 14 or Article 16.

F. That the contents of para F are in the contradiction to the previous

submissions of the petitioner and hence, denied vehemently. The

petitioner earlier stated that there is no source of livelihood but, in

this para, it has been stated that the family is getting certain amount

as against the pension. Also, no proof has been given for the same

by attaching the appropriate document. Furthermore, the petitioner

also has a private job as stated by him in para 12 which contradicts

the submission that, the family has no source of income. Therefore,

by making the contradicting statements the petitioner is trying to

mislead this hon’ble court and hence this petition deserves to be

dismissed.

G. That the contents of para G are denied, for they are negated by the

contradicting submissions of the petitioner only. Earlier, he has

stated that he has a private job and also certain amount is received

by the family as against the pension. Moreover, according to the

succession certificate the Petitioner is entitled to receiving a hefty

amount of approximately Rs. 20 lacs. This shows that there is no

 financial crisis in the family. In the above view, the petition deserves

to be dismissed only on this ground.

H. That the contents of para H are factual but the argument raised by

the respondent on that behalf is infructuous. The order passed is

not illegal and arbitrary but based on the reasonable ground of being

ineligible for the same. Also, there is no violation of fundamental

rights because the order is passed on the basis of intelligible

differentia with a reasonable nexus.

I. That the contents of para I are stated in a wrong manner just to pose

a wrong picture in front of this hon’ble court. The time was taken

for the due verification of the documents which was necessary to

decide whether the appointment should be given or not. There was

no negligence on the part of the respondents as the due process of

law was followed in giving the order rejecting the candidature of the

petitioner.

J. That the contents of para J are denied in toto. There was no

negligence on the part of the respondents as a reasonable time was

taken to verify the documents which is a sine-qua-non to give the

appointment. Without verification, the genuineness of the

documents cannot be upheld. Therefore, the respondents were not

negligent and were duly complying with their duties.

K. That the contents of para K are not true. Only after the due

verification of the documents, the order rejecting the candidature is

passed. Although, no adversity was found in the documents

pertaining to educational qualification but, only, the educational

 qualification is not a single factor for the appointment on

compassionate grounds. There are many other factors and on the

basis of merits, the appointments are made for the same. Therefore,

the order deserves to be upheld.

L. That the contents of para L are denied in toto. The petitioner does

not deserve the appointment due to his ineligibility for the same and

also there’s a procedural flaw in filing the application by the

petitioner, rendering it invalid. Hence, there arises no question of

consequential benefits to be given to the petitioner.

M. That the contents of para M are vehemently denied. No reasonable

nexus can be drawn from the contents of the paragraph. The family

does have a source of livelihood and there’s no immediate crisis in

the family rendering them to live in a state of poverty.

N. That the contents of para N are disavowed. The educational

qualification is not the only factor which can decide the appointment

on compassionate ground but there are many other factors and the

merits are to be looked upon to decide the same. Also, there in no

conclusive proof given by the petitioner that the other appointees

are less qualified by him.

O. That the contents of Para O of the petition are denied, as the Petition

is entirely devoid of any merit and as such, deserves no fate other

than outright dismissal.

16. That the contents of Para 16 of the petition are denied. The

Respondents are unaware as to whether the Petitioner has moved a

 similar petition before any other Court or not, and no evidence to

that effect has been produced by the Petition either. In view of the

same, the contents of the corresponding Para cannot be accepted.

That the contents of the Prayer Paras are denied for being

infructuous, wrongful and illegal. It has been proven that the instant

Petition is frivolous and devoid of all merit, and as such, deserves

no fate other than outright dismissal. The Petitioner has miserably

failed to establish any case against the Respondents. In view of the

same, the Petition deserves no relief or damages whatsoever under

the garb of the instant Petition.

i. That the contents of the sub-para i are denied. Your lordship

may thus be pleased to upheld the order as, it is passed

following the due process of law.

ii. That the contents of the sub-para ii are denied. Your lordship

may thus reject the claim of the petitioner to get the

appointment on compassionate grounds as he is ineligible for

the same.

iii. That the contents of the sub-para iii are denied. Your lordship

may thus be pleased to reject the stay application of the

petitioner.

iv. That the contents of the sub-para iv are denied as, the Petition

is entirely devoid of any merit and as such, deserves no fate

other than outright dismissal.

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, arguments advanced and

authorities cited, this court may be pleased to:

 i. Take the instant Reply to the writ petition on record, and

dismiss the petition with heavy costs.

ii. Any other order or relief in the favour of respondents that it

may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity and good conscience.

Jaipur/ Dated

Counsel on the behalf of

Respondents No. 2 & 3
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN,
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 27284/2018

INDEX

Rakesh Kumar

PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Rajasthan and Ors.

RESPONDENTS

INDEX

S.no Particulars Pages

1. Reply to the writ petition

2. Affidavit in support of Reply

3. Documents

i. The copy of Rules

ii. Affidavit in support of the writ

petition

iii. Affidavit in support of the

documents
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN,
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 27284/2018

INDEX

Rakesh Kumar

PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Rajasthan and Ors.

RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF REPLY

I, _________________________________________________ do hereby

solemnly affirm on oath and state as under:

[1] That I am the authorized signatory of the Respondent and I am

therefore well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the
present reply and competent to swear this affidavit.

[2]. That I have gone through and fully understood the averments
made in the annexed reply which has been drafted by my counsel
under my instructions.

[3]. That the factual contents of the annexed reply are true and
correct to my personal knowledge derived from the record and the
legal averments made therein are believed by me to be true and
correct on the basis of legal advice tendered to me by my Counsel.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, the above-named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of

paragraphs 1 to 3 of my above affidavit are true and correct; nothing
material has been concealed therefrom; and no part of it is false. SO,
HELP ME GOD.

DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN,
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 27284/2018

INDEX

Rakesh Kumar

PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Rajasthan and Ors.

RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DOCUMENTS

I, _________________________________________________ do hereby
solemnly affirm on oath and state as under:

1. That I am the Respondent and I am therefore well conversant with

the facts and circumstances of the present Reply and competent to
swear this affidavit.

2. That the document annexed as Annexures R/1 is the true copy of

the original documents.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, the above-named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of

paragraphs 1 to 2 of my above affidavit are true and correct; nothing
material has been concealed therefrom and no part of it is false. SO,
HELP ME GOD.

DEPONENT