G MALLIKHARJUNA RAO Vs. DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE NELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the son of one Venktata Subbaiah who was in the Ministerial services of the judiciary. Late Venkata Subbaiah died on 15-5-1984 in harness. It appears that at the time of death of the father, the petitioner was minor and admittedly, attained majority on 12-6-1992. The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate ground by making an application on 24-8-1992. The petitioner's claim was rejected by the respondents. The validity of the same is assailed in this writ petition.

(2.) Secondly, the petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the action of the respondents in denying reservation to the petitioner who is also a physically handicapped person in the vacancies notified vide notification dated 4-10-1996 in terms of Rule 22(ii) of the A.P State and Subordinate Service Rules as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider and appoint him in any suitable post in the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Services such as Typist, Junior Assistant, Copyist, Record Assistant etc.

(3.) Adverting to the first claim of the petitioner, suffice it to state that under the Rules governing appointment on compassionate grounds, the dependents of the deceased employee who are minor at the time of death of the employee can seek appointment on compassionate ground only if such dependents attain majority within a period of two years from the date of the death. In the instant case, the petitioner attained the majority after a long time of more than eight years. There is no controversy on facts. The Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Jafli Devi, 1997 (5) SCC 301, opined that in considering the claims of the persons for appointment on compassionate grounds, the policy laid down by the employer or the Regulations governing the appointment should not be departed from by the High Court. Since the petitioner does not acquire a right to be considered for appointment under compassionate grounds under the existing Rules, non-consideration of his case by the respondents cannot be faulted. This takes us to the alternative claim of the petitioner. Although the petitioner has not taken any ground on the basis of the provisions of the persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act'), to claim reservation to the extent of 3%, it is appropriate to mention that in terms of the above Act, enacted by the Indian Parliament, under Section 33 of the Act, every appropriate Government is obliged to provide certain percentage of vacancies not less than 3% for class of persons with disability. Section 33 reads: