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 :

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

o issue a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the proceedings vide RC.No.145-A3/2009, dt.28.01.2015, issued by the 3rd respondent contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.612 G A Services-A department dated 30.10.1991 Memo No.140733/Ser A/20031 G A Ser A Dept dated 14.11.2003 and A Memo No.406/10/A 1 Admn.11/2004 Fin Admn II Dated 20.03.2004, as illegal arbitrary and Violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings vide Rc.No.145-A3/2009, dt.28.01.2015 of the 3rd respondent by appointing the 2nd petitioner on compassionate grounds and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”

2) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

3) Heard Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

4) The facts of the case are that one Sri H.A. Visweswara Rao, the husband of 1st petitioner, who worked as a Messenger in the Office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Peddapuram, died on 23.01.2009 while in service. The 1st petitioner was blessed with one daughter i.e., 2nd petitioner herein and one son viz., Sri H.N.M. Rajeswara Rao.

5) Consequent to the demise of the husband of the 1st petitioner, her son Sri H.N.M. Rajeswara Rao had applied for 4th employment under compassionate grounds and the respondent issued proceedings in R.Dis.A6/2793/2009, dated 18.08.2009 appointing her son as Junior Assistant and he was allotted to the Office of the 3rd respondent. He joined duty as Junior Assistant in respondent office on 23.09.2009. Thereafter, he met with an accident on 09.10.2009 and unfortunately died leaving behind the petitioners. He did not receive even his first salary as the period between his joining into service and demise is just 15 days only. The petitioners are the dependents on the deceased and as such, they requested to provide appointment on compassionate grounds to the 2nd petitioner.

6) The 2nd petitioner studied up to X class and though she got married, she is living with the 1st petitioner and dependent on the 1st petitioner and deceased brother as she is having no source of income. Due to sudden demise of the breadwinners in a very short span of time, the petitioners are living in pathetic condition. On 31.10.2009 the 1st petitioner submitted a representation to the 4th respondent requesting to provide appointment in any suitable post to the 2nd petitioner on compassionate grounds. The said representation was rejected vide proceedings in Rc.No.145-A3/2009, dated 23.009.2010 of the 3rd respondent. Against the said proceedings, the present writ petition is filed.

7) On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the request of the petitioners is not feasible for consideration in terms of G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991 and Government Memo No.17897/Ser.A/2000-1, dated 20.04.2000 and as such, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.341/F1-2/2011, dated 13.09.2011 confirmed the proceedings of the 3rd respondent.

8) The Hon’ble Minister for Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development, Fisheries and Veterinary University has forwarded a note to the 3rd respondent requesting to forward the request of the 2nd petitioner to the Government through the Commissioner & Director of School Education, Hyderabad, for getting necessary relaxation of the Rule for providing employment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent submitted proposals to the 2nd respondent on 30.06.2011. The 2nd respondent, vide proceedings in Rc.No.341/F1-2/2011, dated 13.09.2011, stating that the orders of the 3rd respondent holds good. The 1st respondent also issued clarificat