IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointment cannot be denied based on descent; the policy must comply with Article 14 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Certiorari, for the following relief:

".... Calling for the records and quash the impugned proceedings issued vide proceedings No.B/P.Com/ 563/ III/98/2009 dt.14.11.2018 by the 3rd respondent herein as highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, malafide and consequently, to quash the same and direct the respondents to forthwith provide compassionate appointment to the 2nd petitioner herein in any suitable post as per the 2nd petitioner's qualifications and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

a. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the mother and son respectively. One E.Lakshminarayana[hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'] (who is the husband of the petitioner No. 1 while alive, worked as Mechanical (CMW) Fitter, in respondent-Railways from 10.10.1972 to 08.01.2006. He died while on duty on 08.01.2006.

b. During the life time of the said E.Lakshminarayana, with the consent of his first wife, namely, E.Komala (since she was issueless), he married the petitioner No. 1 on 27.11.1986 and they were blessed with a son and daughter, namely, E.Sai Kumar (Petitioner No. 2) and Divya Kanti. After the death of deceased, Petitioner No. 1 received family pension through the public sector bank as per the proceedings dated 06.11.2007.

c. As per the Award of the Lok Adalat, Warangal, dated 22.03.2007, the two wives of the deceased agreed to share the death benefits and pension of the deceased equally and that the son of the petitioner No. 1, Eda Sai Kumar is entitled for the job of his father on compassionate grounds.

d. The petitioner No. 1 made an application dated 09.02.2009 requesting compassionate appointment to her son/petitioner No. 2, who was studying Class-X and that the petitioner No. 1 received letter dated 18.05.2019 from the respondent authorities to submit all documents.

e. The Respondent No. 3, vide proceedings No.B/P.Com.563/ 98/2009, dated 17.07.2009 informed the Petitioner No. 1 that the request for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected on the ground that the ex-employee married the Petitioner No. 1 without taking permission from the administration entered into second marriage without taking legal separation, and as per the rules in force, appointment on compassionate grounds to the second widow and her children is not permissible.

f. The Petitioner No. 1 again made an application dated 07.04.2015 and the same is also rejected by the respondent No. 3, vide proceedings dated 23.04.2015. The first wife of the deceased also addressed a letter to the Respondent No. 2 stating that after obtaining the oral consent from her, the deceased married the petitioner No. 1 and she had no objection for providing job to Petitioner No. 2 on compassionate grounds.

g. The Petitioner made a representation dated 05.01.2018 to Respondent No. 2 requesting to provide employment on compassionate grounds to prevent starvation of the entire family but no orders have been passed till date.

h. The Respondent No. 3 vide the proceedings dated 14.11.2018 rejected the request of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for the reasons as already stated above, which is illegal, arbitrary and passed unilaterally, mechanically and without any application of mind in a routine manner.

i. Hence, W.P.

3. The key averments made in the counter affidavit are:

a. Jurisdiction of the subject matter falls under the Central Administration Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench as per Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act and without availing the said remedy, the petitioners straight away filed the writ petition and even then, the issue is not fallen for consideration by the General Manager, Central Railways and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable either on law or on facts.

b. The Railway rules and regulations do not permit the