G SURYANARAYANA MURTHY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of the petitioner died on 29-1-90 (sic. September, 1989) in harness. He left behind the Writ Petitioner, his mother and his sister. On the date of death of his father the petitioner was minor. The petitioner's mother made an application to the Superintending Engineer seeking appointment of her son on compassionate grounds. On 31-10-89 the Superintending Engineer informed the petitioner's mother to renew the application after the petitioner becomes major. On 5-8-93 the mother of the petitioner again made an application renewing the request. The petitioner had become major in the meantime. He also filed a separate application. By an order dated 14-12-93 the third respondent rejected both the applications stating that the petitioner had become major after more than two years from the date of death of his father and therefore he was not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. Then the petitioner made an application for relaxing the condition laid down in G.O.Ms.No. 165, dated 20-3-89 which was also rejected. On 8-1-94 the mother of the petitioner again made a representation. This representation was not replied to. On 30th July, 1995 she gave a representation to the Minister and again her request was rejected on 22-3-96. On 3-6-96 she gave another representation which was rejected on 3-7-97. By this rejection order it was made clear to the petitioner and his mother that rules could not be relaxed. Thereafter the petitioner filed an O.A. which was also dismissed.

(2.) Admittedly the petitioner's father died in September, 1989. He was under-aged and he became major somewhere in 1993. He made a representation which was rejected on the ground that G.O.Ms.No. 165 stipulated that compassionate appointment could only be offered within two years of the date of death of the Government servant. Since the petitioner had not become major within the prescribed limit of two years he could not be offered compassionate appointment. Now, whether a person whose father died in harness in 1989 can be appointed on compassionate grounds in 2002 is the question before this Court. Such questions have already been decided by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. The appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the general rule of appointments. All appointments to the public offices have to be made in accordance with the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution which would mean that the best suitable candidate must be appointed to a job after considering all eligible candidates. The appointment on compassionate grounds without a competition is an exception and this exception has been accepted by the Courts in our country including the Apex Court because if an earning member of a family dies suddenly and dies in harness his family would be put to financial crunch and in order to provide succor to such a family the mode of appointment on compassionate grounds has been accepted by the Courts. The purpose of such appointments is only to provide immediate help to the family whose earning member dies. The Supreme Court went even to the extent that compassionate appointment may not be offered where the family does not suffer financially in case of death of an earning member. In this case reliance may be placed on a judgment of Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana. The Supreme Court laid down:

(3.) Again in State of U.P. v. Paras Nath the Supreme Court stuck to the law laid down by it. The Court held: