T. Rajasekhar vs District Educational Officer and Another

P.S. Narayana, J.—T. Raja Shekar, applicant in OA No. 7375 of 2000 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") challenged the order made in the aforesaid OA dated 9-11-2004.

It is stated by the petitioner that his father while working as watchman in Government Girls High School, Bobbili, died in harness on 4-12-1996 and he alone was the bread winner of the entire family. In view of the illiteracy of the mother of the writ petitioner, the petitioner submitted an application on 23-12-1996 seeking a suitable appointment on compassionate grounds in the light of G.O. Ms No. 349 GAD (Ser. A), dated 12-6-1989. It is further stated that the writ petitioner as on 4-12-1998, was aged about 17 years 5 months and as per G.O. Ms No. 349, the application for compassionate appointment should be made within two years and his application is well within time. In view of lengthy correspondence in relation there to, ultimately the claim made by the writ petitioner was rejected vide proceedings, dated 31-5-2000, which had been impugned in the aforesaid OA., and it is stated by that time the writ petitioner was aged 19 years and studying degree. Hence, in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal should have considered his case and should have issued suitable directions. In the light of the same, the present writ petition had been filed.

Sri T.C. Krishnan, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the order, which had been impugned in the OA and also the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard, and would contend that at any rate, relaxation can be given. The learned Counsel would also submit that the authorities had not exercised their discretion properly. The learned Counsel points out a Circular Memo No. 155498/Ser.G/2004-l, dated 27-11-2004, and would contend that in the light of the said circular memo, the case of the petitioner should have been considered for compassionate appointment instead of rejecting the same. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to certain similar cases where such a relaxation of age had been given and the cases had been considered, and would contend that there is discrimination in this regard. Reliance was placed on D. Sreeramulu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, .

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II had taken this Court through the findings which have been recorded by the Tribunal in general and pointed out to Para No. 8 in particular and would contend that the authorities had exercised their discretion properly which is in accordance with the specified guidelines in relation to consideration of the case for compassionate appointment. The learned Counsel would also contend that the decision of this Court reported in D. Sreeramulu ''s case (supra) is distinguishable on facts.

Heard the learned Counsel.

We have also perused the material available on record, and the impugned order made by the Tribunal.

The learned Tribunal after discussing all the aspects, at Para No. 8 observed as hereunder:

"The underlying principle for giving compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee is in harness and distress condition and thrown on roads and also unable to maintain itself. In the light of the principle laid down, the right of appointment shall be exercised as per rules issued in this regard. In order to consider harness conditions, a period of two years is fixed. If the family is unable to maintain itself during this two years period, it can be said to be in harness condition and requires some helping hand. No doubt, some relaxation power is given to the authorities. It is a matter of discretion of the authorities whether to give relaxation or not. But cannot be enforced by the Court of law, unless there is failure of exercising discretion without reasonable ground. It is not mentioned by the applicant that such failure exists in his case. Viewed from this angle, it cannot be said that G.O. Ms. No. 165 GAD dated 20-3-1989 is bad in law".

The Tribunal had arrived at a correct conclusion in deciding the matter. Merely because in certain cases on the basis of relaxation cases had been considered, that by itself cannot be a ground to extend the same to the present case too. Apart from this aspect to the matter, the circular memo, which had been relied upon by the writ petitioner dated 27-11-2004, also would not improve the situation in any way. It is no doubt true that in D. Sreeramulu''s case (supra) in view of the facts, the learned Judge had disposed of the matter, but the same is distinguishable on facts on hand, and hence, this Court need not express any opinion in relation to the said decision.

In State of Haryana v. Rani Devi 1996 (4) SLR 505, after referring to Smt. Gosain v. Union of India 1989 (4) SLR 327 (SC), Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar 1994 (2) SLR 1 (SC), Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana 1994 (2) SLR 677 (SC), State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Ball 1994 (4) SLR 1 (SC), it was held that the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the bread earner in the family and the appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and can be upheld if such appointees can be held to form a class by themselves, otherwise any such appointment merely on the ground that the person concerned happens to be a dependent of an ex-employee of the State Government or the Central Government shall be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. But while framing any rule in respect of appointment on compassionate ground the authorities have to be conscious of the fact that this right which is being extended to a dependent of the deceased employee is an exception to the right granted to the citizen under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as such there should be a proper check and balance and the High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot issue directions on sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when Regulations framed in this respect do not cover and contemplate such appointments and any such right for appointment on compassionate grounds flows on the basis of rules, regulations or some administrative order issued in the form of resolution or office memorandum. In State of Rajasthan v. Chandra Narain Varma 1993 (8) SLR 428, it was held that it is one thing to say that a family member of the deceased is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground but it is altogether a different thing to say that his appointment may be made regardless of the Rules. The object of providing for such appointment on compassionate grounds and the ambit thereof had been well explained in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh 1994 (5) SLR 638 , State of Manipur v. A. Ongbi Memcha Devi, 1995 (2) SLR 762, Jethi Devi Vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board and Another, , Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Bhagwan Singh, , Hindustan Aeronauticals Limited v. A. Radhika Tirumalai 1996(7) Supreme 527 , Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dinesh Kumar, , State of Haryana and Others Vs. Hawa Singh, , State of Haryana and Others Vs. Surjeet Singh, . The decisions of the Apex Court are too numerous dealing with these aspects relating to appointments made on compassionate grounds. In Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and Another, , it was held that the very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family and when the death occurred way back in the year 1971 when the appellant was only four years old it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter and if such contention is to be accepted it would amount to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of the deceased Government servant which cannot be encouraged de hors the recruitment rules.

However, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.