JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Dr. Sastry Jandhyala along with Dr. Suri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents.

2. This petition has been filed for the following main prayer:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in not considering the ‘Compassionate Appointment’ and issuing the impugned Endorsements vide Ref.No.B2/329/2018 dated 14.12.2018 & 24.09.2018 issued by the Respondent No.3 & No.4 by not considering my representations vide dated 18.07.2018, 15.03.2021 & 09.04.2021 for appointment on compassionate grounds due to death of my mother, on the ground that my father is a pensioner, as illegal and arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India pass such other orders as deems fit and necessary.”

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order, the petitioner’s representation for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of the petitioner’s mother during service period has been rejected on two grounds. One that the petitioner is over age as the petitioner’s age is 35 years and the upper age limit, as per the Circular Memo No.60681/Ser.A/2003- 1, dated 12.08.2003 shall be 33 years for Open Category, and secondly that the petitioner's father is getting pension.

4. Circular Memo No.60681/Ser.A/2003-1, dated 12.08.2003 has been placed before the Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader after giving copy thereof to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The same is taken on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, with respect to the first ground, submits that the Circular Memo, dated 12.08.2003 under clause-VI thereof specifically provides that if giving of compassionate appointment requires relaxation of age, necessary proposal should be sent to the concerned administrative department in the Government for taking necessary action for relaxation of the age, and in view thereof, instead of rejecting the petitioner's representation on the ground of age, the proposal should have been forwarded to the concerned administrative department in the Government.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits, with respect to the second ground, that the Circular Memo No.3548/Ser.G/A2/2010-8, dated 24.03.2012 provided that when one of the parents of the dependant/applicant for compassionate appointment is in service or in receipt of service pension and family pension, and lump sum retiral benefits, the dependent is not entitled to seek compassionate appointment, since there is no financial distress. However, the circular dated 24.03.2012 was set aside in O.A.Nos.3012/2015 and 1125/2017 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by judgment dated 20.02.2018, and has further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.27465 of 2017 decided on 30.08.2017 in support of his contention that grant of pension to the father cannot be a ground to reject the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment.

7. Sri M. Srinivas Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the clause IV of the Circular Memo No.60681/Ser.A/2003-1, dated 12.08.2003 providing for the proposal for age relaxation is applicable to the case of the spouse of the deceased. He has further placed reliance on Circular Memo, dated 24.03.2012 to submit that in view thereof the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

8. In response the petitioner’s counsel has placed reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.246, dated 10.06.2016 Revenue Services II Department of A.P. Government, G.O.Ms.No.58, dated 08.07.2013 Higher Education UE 1 Department of A.P. Government, G.O.Ms.No.450, dated 10.10.2017 Revenue Services II Department of A.P. Government, G.O.R.T.No.781, dat