Compassionate appointment is a benevolent scheme aimed at providing immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased government employee, and the requirement of being a 'local candidate' should not be interpreted hyper-technically to defeat this objective.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, wherein the following prayer is made:

“…..to issue Writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned order No.A4/412/2019 Endorsement dated 22.07.2019 issued by the 1st respondent and Memo No.17414/Ser.A/2007, dated 07.12.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent in not consider the case of the petitioner case compassionate appointment by holding the orders of 1st and 2nd respondents as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional and it amounts to violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 of Constitution of India, and contrary to the presidential order 1975, principles of natural justice and contrary to the legislative intension and set aside the same, direct the respondents to provide appointment in any suitable post under compassionate grounds in the interest of justice and to pass such other further orders….” [reproduced verbatim]

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri P.Lakshmana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II representing the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 and perused the record.

3. The facts of the case, in brief are that the husband of the petitioner was a Doctor working under State Government. He died in harness on 30.10.2017. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner, being the legally wedded wife of the deceased Doctor, made a representation, dated 18.12.2017 to the respondent authorities requesting them to provide employment on compassionate grounds. When the said representation, dated 18.12.2017 was not acted upon by the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P.No.163 of 2019 before this Court and this Court, vide order, dated 04.01.2019 disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds by duly considering the representation submitted by her on 18.12.2017 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Thereafter, the respondent No.1, vide Endorsement No.A4/412/2019, dated 22.07.2019 rejected the request for compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not a “local candidate” and that her request for compassionate appointment was not found to be in accordance with the guidelines issued vide Government Memo No.17414/Ser.A/2007, dated 07.12.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the relief stated supra.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the husband of the petitioner died in harness, the petitioner, being his legally wedded wife is entitled for compassionate appointment. Since the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate hardship caused due to the death of the bread winner in the family, the respondents ought to have provided compassionate appointment to the petitioner since she has to maintain herself and her three daughters. On the death of the husband of the petitioner, the family suffered great loss without livelihood. Though the petitioner made a representation, within one and half month after the demise of her husband, the respondents, after a lengthy official correspondence of two years, ultimately rejected the claim of the petitioner. The respondents are not justified in doing so. Further, the petitioner is a qualified B.A.M.S. Doctor. Pursuant to her marriage, she left practice and confined herself to the household duties. Taking into consideration of the educational qualifications of the petitioner, the respondents ought to have given compassionate appointment to the petitioner as an Ayurvedic Doctor in any Ayurvedic Dispensaries/Hospitals in the State.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II representing the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 would submit that on receipt of the application, dated 18.12