ORDER :

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

“…to set aside the impugned proceedings vide Lr.No.731/2015- P9, dated 29.9.2015 issued by 3rd respondent rejecting the request of the Applicant herein seeking compassionate appointment, as illegal, irregular and violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds in a suitable post in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders…….”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was initially appointed as an Attender in 3rd respondent department and while in service he was expired on 27.07.2002 due to ill health. Thereafter, in the year 2003, the petitioner herein made an application to the respondent authorities with a request to appoint him on compassionate grounds. The said application was rejected by the respondents vide proceedings D.S.No.1200/04/P1 dated 18.06.2004 on the ground that petitioner’s mother Smt K. Narayanamma has been working as Sweeper in DRDA. In the year 2012, the petitioner’s mother superannuated without any pension facility. Thereafter, due to financial crisis, the petitioner made several representations to the 3rd respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds. But, the 3rd respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner as his mother has been working in DRDA and stated that as per Government Orders, no person is having source of income the deceased family and the eligible persons in the family will provide appointment on compassionate grounds and hence there is no possibility to provide compassionate appointment. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition and inter alia contended that the petitioner has submitted compassionate appointment proposals to this respondent office on 24.06.2003 without enclosing “No Earning Member” Certificate that was mentioned in the check list. Providing employment to the petitioner under compassionate grounds the proposals scrutinized by the then Executive Officer and observed that the wife of the deceased is also employee working in DRDA and hence rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 18.06.2004. it is also stated that after rejection of the proposals in the year 2004, the petitioner kept silent up to 06.09.2015. it is also stated that once rejected the compassionate appointment proposals with valid reasons and existing Government Rules not reviewed by this office and also submits that the petitioner responded after lapse of 11 years and after retirement of his mother from service is not justified. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. Heard Sri Saripalli Subrahmanyam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-IV and Sri G. Srinivasulu Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection for compassionate appointment of the petitioner is highly illegal and arbitrary. He submits that due to unavoidable circumstances in the petitioner’s family, he made a petition in Praja vani vide Case No.20152-

3515341 dated 7.9.2015 to the 2nd respondent requesting to appoint him on compassionate grounds since his father died while in service in the 3rd respondent department and he is also eligible for the said appointment. Thereafter, he made another application dated 30.09.2015 to the 3rd respondent. However, the 3rd respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders as stated supra.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel while reiterating the contents made in the counter, contended that, as per G.O.Ms.No.687 General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 03.10.1977 – Providing employment under compassionate grounds the