APHC010014882026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1480 Between: 1. SAYYAD NAGEENA BEGUM, W/O. SD. AMEER JOHN (LATE), ARPC 1531, AGE 47 YEARS, KANDUKURTOWN AND MUNICIPALITY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 523105. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SP OFFICE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in t circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2 considering the representation dated 31.12.2025 submitted by the petitioner seeking appointment of her 2nd son, namely Sayyed Aleem, and in failing to give proper reply and not comply the representation of the petitioner dated 10.01.2013 as illegal, arbitrary, irrational, without authority of law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the said representations in accordance with law and to pay the arrears due to the petitioner and to pass 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1480 OF 2026 SAYYAD NAGEENA BEGUM, W/O. SD. AMEER JOHN (LATE), ARPC YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, 12-6-2, BUDIDAPALEM, KANDUKURTOWN AND MUNICIPALITY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT -522237. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SP OFFICE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in t circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not considering the representation dated 31.12.2025 submitted by the petitioner seeking appointment of her 2nd son, namely Sayyed Aleem, and in failing to give proper reply and not comply the representation of the petitioner dated 013 as illegal, arbitrary, irrational, without authority of law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the said representations in accordance with law and due to the petitioner and to pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA SAYYAD NAGEENA BEGUM, W/O. SD. AMEER JOHN (LATE), ARPC 2, BUDIDAPALEM, KANDUKURTOWN AND MUNICIPALITY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT- ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SP OFFICE, ONGOLE, ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature Respondent in not considering the representation dated 31.12.2025 submitted by the petitioner seeking appointment of her 2nd son, namely Sayyed Aleem, and in failing to give proper reply and not comply the representation of the petitioner dated 013 as illegal, arbitrary, irrational, without authority of law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the said representations in accordance with law and 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay 50% of the arrears amount to the petitioner in advance pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and to pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH NAGENDRA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following Order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1480 OF 2026 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent No.2 in not considering the representation of the Petitioner, dated 31.12.2025 seeking appointment of her second son as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that after death of her husband, she submitted a representation dated 01.01.2013 seeking compassionate appointment. Pursuant to the same, the Respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 07.01.2013. Accordingly, the Petitioner joined as Sweeper in the office of Respondent No.2 at Ongole. Thereafter, she suffered illness and on 10.01.2013 she submitted a representation to reassign the said post to her second son. The Respondent No.2 in turn referred to the Administrative Officer on very same day. Thereafter, the Petitioner has submitted representations on various dates 23.01.2023 and 31.12.2025, as the same was not considered, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 3. The Respondent No.2 filed Counter-Affidavit duly stating that in pursuance of the representation made by the Petitioner dated 28.09.2010 stating that her husband died on 04.06.2010 due to ill health and requested to provide employment to her on compassionate grounds, which was considered and she was appointed as a Sweeper, vide office Proceedings in C.No.4029/A1/2010, dated 09.05.2011 with instructions to join in the said post within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said proceedings and if 4 she failed to join the duty within stipulated time, it will be treated that there are no compelling reasons of poverty and the appointment order will be automatically cancelled. However, the Petitioner did not choose to join within stipulated period, as such, the same was cancelled as per Rule 11(a) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. 4. Thereafter, the Petitioner once again submitted a representation dated 14.06.2012 informing the Respondent No.2 that due to her illness, she could not join the duty as a Sweeper but however, she intended to join in the post of Dhobi and requested to permit her to join as a Dhobi. The then Superintendent of Police once again appointed the Petitioner in the post of Dhobi, vide proceedings dated 07.01.2013 on humanitarian grounds owing to the vacancies of Dhobi posts existing in the District Police Office, Ongole, which was acknowledged by the Petitioner on 08.01.2013. Inspite of the same, she did not report for duty in the post of Dhobi. 5. Again, the Petitioner made a representation dated 10.01.2013 stating that due to ill health, she could not join in the Dhobi post and requested to prove employment to her eldest son on compassionate grounds along with connected documents. On scrutiny of the credentials submitted by the Petitioner, it was noticed that the son of the Petitioner was a minor as on the date of death of the husband of the Petitioner and not attained the age of 18 years. As per Government Memo No.618/Ser.A/78-11, GAD, dated 17.12.1979, the relief can be asked for within reasonable time, which may be two years from the date of demise of government employee. But the Petitioner 5 had not attained majority even after giving reasonable time. Hence, the son of the Petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment. The Petitioner once again made a representation dated 10.09.2018 and also in Spandana grievance on 08.06.2022 requesting to provide employment to her son, but in vain. 6. Hence, the Petitioner once again made a representation on 31.12.2025 by making similar request, which was received by the Respondent No.2 on 04.01.2026 and the same was taken into consideration and rejected as per rules in vogue vide office Endorsement dated 07.02.2026 and duly communicated to the Petitioner on 10.02.2026. The said Endorsement is also enclosed to the Counter-Affidavit, which would show that the Petitioner has acknowledged the same. This Court is of the opinion that in such a case, the Petitioner ought to have challenged the said endorsement dated 07.02.2026. 7. In view of the same, this Court finds no reason to allow the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the Endorsement in C.No.4209/A1/2010, dated 07.02.2026 issued by the Respondent No.2 before appropriate authority in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 06.05.2026 KK