D. Sreeramulu vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others

Questioning the order dated 3-5-1997 passed by the fourth respondent in Memo No. D.Dis.No. 4068/96-A-III, whereunder the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by relaxing the age was rejected, the present writ petition is filed.

Though the writ petition is coming up for admission from the last week of December 1997, the respondents did not choose to file any counter in this case. On 9-3-1998 I passed the following order :

"Print the name of Sri K. Raghavendra Reddy for R-4 and Post on 23-03-1998, in the mean time counter, if any."

Again when the case is listed today, a request was made on behalf of respondents to adjourn the case to enable them to file counter. I have gone through the orders passed by the respondents. By filing a counter the case of the respondents cannot be improved, as the order rejecting the case of the petitioner is a self explanatory one. Hence, the request is rejected.

Now, I proceed to examine the merits of the case. The petitioner''s father who was working as teacher in Baddalapuram village, Anantapur district died on 3-12-1984. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a minor being 14 1/2 years old at that point of time. Even then the petitioner made a representation on 18-5-1985 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and the same seemed to have been forwarded by the Mandal Development Officer in his letter No. Ls.No.2295/85 dated 7-11-1985. But, the fourth respondent did not move in the matter for a long time, In the meantime the petitioner made another representation on 15-4-1988. On that, the fourth respondent in his proceedings in L.Dis. No. 2501/88-A5, dated 25-5-1988 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the application was not filed within one year from the date of his father''s death and he was a minor at that point of time. Thereafter, the petitioner seemed to have made a representation to the District Development Officer once again explaining the pitiable conditions. But, that was rejected by the District Development Officer in his endorsement L.Dis. No. 3559/93-A5, dated 22-4-1993 stating that the petitioner''s request for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be considered because of ban on filling up the posts. Once again the petitioner seemed to have approached the District Collector who ordered a detailed enquiry whether the petitioner submitted application on 18-5-1985, within one year from the death of his father. Pursuant to the enquiry ordered by the Collector, the Mandal Revenue Officer informed the fourth respondent in his proceedings Rc.No. 192/93)D) dated 18-5-1993 admitting that the petitioner applied for appointment on 8-11-1985 and the same was forwarded to the Zilla Praja Parishad, Anantapur under Registered Post No. 1133 dated 8-11-1985. This report is based on the entries made in the despatch register as well as the personal register of the concerned clerk relating to the year 1985. Subsequently, the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted another report about the plight of the petitioner in his report dated 17-7-1993. It is useful to extract the relevant portion of the report.

"D. Sree Ramulu aged about 23 years is the only legal heir to the deceasedperson namely Sri D. Ramaswamy. The respectable persons of Anantapur Municipality and the applicant stated that Sri D. Sree Ramulu have not possessed any moveable or immovable property. Further he stated that the petitioner was not working in any Government or semi-Government service. He is residing in his relatives house. He completed his 10th standard."

On the basis of the report, the matter seemed to have been referred to the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and the same was rejected stating that it cannot be considered as per the Government Rules and the same was communicated by the District Collector in his Lr.No. L. PER.A2/5219/93, dated 19-6-1993. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed a revision before the first respondent duly bringing to his notice that in similar circumstances the Government was pleased to relax the time limit prescribed in G.O.Ms. No.687 GAD dated 3-10-1997 by seven years in case of one Shakir All Khan S/o late B. Mahaboob All Khan of Cuddapah District in G.O.Ms. No. 91 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Estt. IV) Department dated 9-2-1990. But, once again the first respondent seemed to have rejected the request of the petitioner in his letter Rc.No.42359/Estt.V/Al/ 96-3 dated 21-4-1997 and the same was communicated by the fourth respondent to the petitioner in his proceedings D.Dis. No.4068/ 96-A3, dated 3-5-1997. This order is now challenged before this Court.

4, Smt. Rajani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate grounds well within the time prescribed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 687 and the respondents initially by taking an erroneous view that the petitioner submitted the application for the first time only in the year 1988 rejected the claim of the petitioner. But, the fact of submitting the application is proved beyond doubt as per the report of the Mandal Development Officer dated 18-5-1993 which was already extracted supra. Secondly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that as per G.O.Ms. No.349 dated 12-6-1984 a person claiming appointment on compassionate grounds has to complete 18 years but for appointment to the post of Last Grade Service it is sufficient if he completes 16 years of age,

5, In this case, though the petitioner did not attain the age of 16 years at the time of death of his father by the time the application received the attention of the authorities, he has crossed not only the age of 16 years but also he attained the age of 18 years. Hence, the respondents are not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment at least to the last grade service. I find sufficient force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Firstly the request of the petitioner was rejected in the year 198 8 on the ground that he has not applied to the post within one year as contemplated under G.O.Ms. No. 687 which ultimately proved to be incorrect. On the date of the first rejection,, the petitioner completed the age of 18 years. Hence, there is no justification for the authorities concerned in rejecting the appointment to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was put on a strong ground by Smt. Rajani by drawing my attention to the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 91 dated 9-2-1990 wherein the time limit fixed for filing applications for appointment on compassionate grounds was relaxed in favour of one Sri Shabir Ali Khan by seven years and it is her case that the said G.O. was filed along with the representation of the petitioner dated 9-2-1996 but how the Secretary dealt with this aspect is not within her knowledge as the order passed by the Secretary was not communicated to the petitioner and it is only the order of the fourth respondent dated 3-5-1997 that was communicated to the petitioner. This order is only a cryptic order saying that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered by relaxing the Rules.

It is now well settled principle that the Government or the authorities cannot act at their whims and fancies while exercising the powers vested in them but the same should stand to reason and the State being a welfare State should treat all the persons similarly placed, equally. But it cannot treat one person in one way and the other person in another way. If that is taken into consideration, the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 17-7-1993 is very crystal clear that the boy has put in 23 years and he lost his parents and taking shelter in relative''s house without any means to live on his own, I feel that the case of the petitioner stands on a better footing than Sri B. Shabbir Ali Khan in whose favour the time limit for filing the application was relaxed by the Government by seven years. In this case the petitioner is not only lost his parents, he submitted his application well within the time but the only thing is that he has not completed 16 years on the date of application. The rest of the facts are already adverted to.

For all the above reasons, I am of the confirmed view that the orders of the fourth respondent following the orders passed by the 1st respondent-Secretary, are vitiated by material illegalities and opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the impugned order is quashed. Consequently a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds to any of the posts for which the petitioner is eligible and suitable. The respondents are directed to implement the orders of this Court within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.