IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

WRIT PETITION NO.5506 OF 2024

Dated 5^th December, 2025

Between:

R. Prashanth Kumar … Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Education Department,

Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

& (4) others … Respondents

ORDER:

Seeking to declare the impugned Proceedings Rc.No.14500/

A8(B1)/2013, dated 09.06.2021 and the Memo.Rc.No.4814/Ser.III/ 2021 dated 14.07.2022 issued by respondent No.1 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by relaxing the relevant Rules, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on

compassionate grounds, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2) Heard Sri N.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the mother of the petitioner late Smt. Annapurna, who was working as Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT), has died on 02.10.2012 while in service leaving behind her the petitioner and his father. Due to sudden demise of her mother, the family of the petitioner has lost the bread winner. In those circumstances, the petitioner made a representation dated 04.09.2013 to respondent No.5 seeking to consider his claim for compassionate appointment and the said representation was forwarded by respondent No.5 to respondent No.3 on 20.11.2013. However, the authorities have instructed the petitioner to submit his representation after attaining the majority. As such, the petitioner has continued his studies and completed Intermediate as well as B.Tech. degree. After becoming major, again the petitioner has submitted representation dated 08.03.2021 to respondent Nos.4 and 5 respectively. Considering the said representation, respondent No.5 has forwarded proposals vide Lr.No.156/MRC/ SPT/2021, dated 09.03.2021, to respondent No.4 stating that the petitioner has already submitted a representation in the year 2013 itself. But, the same was not considered by the authorities on the ground that the petitioner was under-aged i.e. below 18 years. Further, respondent No.4 has issued the impugned proceedings dated 09.06.2021 and returned the proposal stating that there is no provision in the Rules for appointment to under- aged applicant under compassionate grounds. It is further submitted that after coming to know that in similar circumstances, the Government has relaxed the relevant Rules with regard to age and considered the claim of several individuals for compassionate appointment, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.07.2021 to respondent No.1 to consider his claim for compassionate appointment by relaxing the Rules. However, respondent No.1 has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned Memo dated 14.07.2022 stating that the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is not feasible for consideration as per the Rules in force and consideration of the request after 11 years may be against the conditions/provisions made under compassionate appointment scheme. Therefore, the action of respondent No.1 in not considering the case of the petitioner while considering others, is highly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and respondent No.1 ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner by relaxing relevant Rules, as was considered in similar cases. It is further submitted that similar issue came up for consideration before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.3890 of 2010 wherein vide order dated 15.07.2011 the Tribunal has directed the respondents therein to relax the Rules and considered the claim of the applicant therein and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.26184 of 2011 vide order dated 20.09.2011. Learned counsel has further submitted that in a catena