Point of law: That appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principles in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. The dependents of a deceased government employee are made eligible by the virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and they must fulfill the norms laid down by the State’s policy

ORDER :

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“… to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the condition 3(b)(i) in G.O.Ms.No.378, GA(Ser-A), dated 24.08.1999, as illegal, void, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and set aside the Memo No.JS(Per)/DS(E)/AS (V&R)-NT/PO-1/718/2004, dated 03.03.2009. of the 4th respondent and consequently direct the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds and pass such other order or further orders as may be just and necessary.”

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

3. Heard Sri K. Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the learned Government Pleader for GAD appearing for the 1st respondent.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner while working as Plant Attendant in Boiler Maintenance, Stage-I, in the 4th respondent Corporation, disappeared on 26.08.2001. Immediately, the mother of the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Ibrahimpatnam, to conduct enquiry which was registered as Crime No.297/2001 as a “man missing case”. Thereafter, the Station House Officer, Ibrahimpatnam after conducting investigation, filed a final report on 31.12.2001 stating the case as “undetectable” and the same was informed to the 4th respondent by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam on 01.10.2002.

5. Consequently, the petitioner made a representation to the 4th respondent to provide employment under compassionate grounds on completion of 7 years period from the date of missing of his father. The 3rd respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that there is no left over service of 7 years to his father on the date of lodging the complaint. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4, it is contended that the application of the petitioner, whose father’s whereabouts are not known, was rejected vide Memo No.JS(Per)DS(E)/ AS(V&R-NT)PO-J/718/2004, dated 03.03.2009 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.378, GA(Ser-A), Dept., dated 24.08.1999 issued by the State Government, as the left over service of the missing employee is less than 7 years to retire from the date on which the FIR was filed. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel sought dismissal of the present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Memo, dated 03.03.2009 issued by the 4th respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The said Memo was issued basing on the condition No.3(b)(i) in G.O.Ms.No.378, GA (Ser-A) Dept., dated 24.08.1999, which itself is illegal, void and contrary to the scheme of compassionate appointment. As and when the Government is providing employment under compassionate grounds to the spouse/ dependents of the deceased employee, who die in harness without putting any condition of length of service left over, putting a condition in condition No.3(b)(i) in G.O.Ms.No.378, GA (Ser-A) Dept., dated 24.08.1999 that this benefit shall not be extended to the dependents of the Government servants, who is less than 7 years of service from the date of filing of FIR is illegal, arbitrary and against to the object of the appointment under compassionate grounds. As such, learned counsel sought to declare the condition No.3(b)(i) in G.O.Ms.No.378, GA (Ser-A) Dept., dated 24.08.1999 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Memo, dated 03.03.2009 issued by the 4th respondent in terms of condition No.3(b)(i) in G.O.Ms.No.378, GA (Ser-A) Dept., dated 24.08.1999, is liable to be set aside.

9. On the other hand, learned Standi