HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.16492 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri Nayakwadi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Kamalakara Rao Bathina, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“…to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring challenging the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.C/869/2022 dated 10.03.2023 of the 4^th respondent by rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as VRA in place of her father late Sri Gopaiah, who expired while in service, solely on the ground the 5th respondent has filed an objection as illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio and violative of due procedure of law and violative of the scheme enunciated by the Government for compassionate appointments and consequently set-aside the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.C/869/2022 dated 10.03.2023 of the 4^th respondent by directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds as VRA in place of her father late Sri.Gopaiah and pass…”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:-

It is specific case of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.C/869/2022, dated 10.03.2023 had been passed by the 4^th respondnet rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as VRA in place of petitioner’s father late Sri Gopaiah, who had expired while in service, solely on the ground that the 5^th respondent had filed an objection as illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio and violative of due procedure of law and violative of the scheme enunciated by the Government for compassionate appointments. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD.

A. The impugned order No.Rc.No.C/ 869/ 2022, dated

10.03.2023 of the 4^th respondent is extracted hereunder:-

In pursuant to the above reference, Chekuri Thirupamma W/o Gopaiah. that her husband Late Gopaiah S/o Nagaiah died on the date: 20.06.2019 while working as a village helper, at Mudigonda Mandal, Vallabhi village. An application was made by Naripogu Nagamani W/o late Hussain (daughter) requesting to provide compassionate appointment. Regarding this application, this office to know whether there are any objections on this application i.e.

appointment of Mrs. Narapogu Nagamani all the family members are requested to attend on 01.03.2023 at 11:00 am.

On 01.03.2023 at about 11.00am Smt Gunjuluri Mangamma, Smt Yandrathi Vijaya Kumari, Smt Vanguri Lakshmi (daughters) attended this office. Mrs. Vangoori Lakshmi W/o Tirupathi Rao (daughter) has submitted a written objection not to make compassionate appointment to Narupogu Nagamani W/o Late Hussain (daughter).

This is to inform Chekuri Tirupamma W/ o Late Gopayya that the members of your family i.e. Mrs. Vanguri Lakshmi W/ o Tirupati Rao (daughter) have expressed objections to providing compassionate appointment to Mrs. Narapogu Nagamani W/ o Late Hussain (daughter) and this issue is considered as a family dispute. Therefore your application is rejected B. The relevant portion of the Memo No.140733/ Ser.A/ 2003-1,Genl.Admn.(Ser.A) Dept., dated 14.11.2003 issued by the Government, pertaining to certain clarification with regard to the compassionate appointments to the dependents of deceased Government employees is extracted hereunder:-

3. Government direct that the Compassionate appointment to the dependents of he deceased Government employee shall be, considered either to spouse, son or daughter. In case, if the wife of the deceased Government employee is not inclined to take appointment a compassionate grounds or not qualified for the appointment, the 'choice of selecting one her dependent children' either s