T RAJASEKHAR Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER VIJAYANAGARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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/2004-1, 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 v. State of A.P., 1998 (3) ALD 236.