Point of law: In the case of appointment considering the social and economic justice as enshrined in the constitution, denials of deserving cases are liable to be set aside. Further, the purpose of providing compassionate ground to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigenous circumstances. Hence, in considering the case for compassionate appointment, the authorities are supposed to adopt a humane outlook

ORDER :

The Present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No:4443/A3-2/14, dated 07.10.2014, rejecting the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds.

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

3. Heard Sri G.U.R.C. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society appearing for 2nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for the 1st respondent.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the mother of the petitioner died in harness on 01.02.2014 while she was working as Multi Purpose Worker (MPW) in Andhra Pradesh Residential School, S.M. Puram, Srikakulam District (i.e.) 3rd respondent institution, leaving behind her, the petitioner and one son viz., K. Chandrasekhar. The father of the petitioner died prior to the death of her mother.

5. The brother of the petitioner, who loved a girl and went away with her during the life time of her mother and living separately. The petitioner married one Satyarao in the month of May, 2005. Due to family disputes, he deserted the petitioner and since then they are living separately. Therefore, she became dependent of her mother for survival.

6. After the sudden demise of the mother of the petitioner, she made an application along with all necessary documents seeking to provide employment on compassionate grounds. The request of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2, vide Proceedings dated 7.10.2014, on the ground that she did not produce the Death Certificate of her mother and the ‘no objection certificate’ from their family members. It is the contention of the petitioner that she has submitted the “death certificate” and “no objection certificate” given by her brother along with the application.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the procedure contemplated under clause 12 of G.O.Ms.No.350, GA (Ser.A), Dept., dated 30.07.1999 in which scheme for compassionate appointment is formulated, the application of the petitioner has to be placed before the 3 Members Committee and after taking decision by the said Committee, the said application has to be forwarded to the 2nd respondent for consideration. In the present case, the 2nd respondent directly rejected the application of the petitioner without placing it before the Committee Members, which is arbitrary and in violation of clauses 10 and 12 of the scheme for compassionate appointment.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the very object of the scheme for compassionate appointment is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to the bereaved family member of a Government Servant dying in harness leaving his family members in penury without any means of livelihood. As such, the rejection of application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on technical grounds is against the object of the Scheme. Hence, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and against to the object of the scheme and sought to allow the writ petition directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment through Respondent No.3 consequent to the death of her mother. The 2nd respondent vide proceedings, dated 07.10.2014 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the death certificate of the deceased employee was not enclosed and also “no objection certificate” from other family members was not enclosed.

10. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel that as per G.O.Ms.No.350, GA (Ser.A) Dept., dated 30.07.1999, the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment since she is not the o