1 APHC010512792005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 15258/2005 Between: 1. K.GOPI, S/O.K.APPA RAO UNEMPLOYEE R/O.H.NO.26/102, BUTTAIPET MACHILIPATNAM KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS, REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPT., SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD. 3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOL EDUCATION, KAKINADA 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM. ...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 in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Memo No.20037/PS-2/2003-2, Education Department dt.24.6.2004 issued by the 1st respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner, for compassionate appointment consequent on the death of his mother, while in service, without assigning any reasons is arbitrary illegal besides being violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for appointment on 2 compassionate grounds in Last Grade services and pass such other further order or orders. IA NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP 19391 OF 2005 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 consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dt.9.9.2004 requesting for compassionate appointment pending dispsoal of the above writ petition and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 3177 OF 2007 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 not to fill up the post Sweeper which was sanctioned to CBKSM Aided High School, Machilipatnam, Krishna, pending disposal of the WP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR EDUCATION 2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed questioning the memo dated 24.06.2004 issued by the 1st respondent wherein the petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate grounds in Last Grade Service is rejected without assigning any reasons. 2. Heard Ms.Neelima, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner has made a representation 3 to the concerned officials seeking appointment on compassionate grounds within the prescribed time of one year from the date of death of his mother. The 1st respondent had issued a Memo dated 24.06.2004 rejecting the proposal for the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate grounds with one sentence order and without assigning any reasons, which is unsustainable. If the said memo subsists, it affects the livelihood of the petitioner as he has no other source of income. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition by appointing the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education submitted that compassionate ground is not a matter of right and after lapse of 20 years that cannot be considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had also held to the said effect. As such petitioner has not made valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court, accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 6. It is admitted that the mother of the petitioner was appointed as a contingent employee and subsequently she was converted as a Class-IV employee in a sanctioned aided post with effect from 01.04.1985. Immediately after the death of his mother, petitioner made a representation to authorities for appointment in Lower Grade Service on compassionate 4 grounds and the 1st respondent herein has issued a Memo dated 24.06.2004 and thereby rejected his claim. 7. In the case of Canara Bank v. Ajith Kumar G.K1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 8. In Central Coalfields Limited v. Parden oraon2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: It was further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. 9. Perusal of the dictum would make it clear that the consideration of compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at 1 AIR online 2025 Supreme Court 184 2 (2021) 16 Supreme Court Cases 384 5 any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 10. In the present case, proposal for petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground was submitted on 02.12.2003 and the same got rejected on 24.06.2004. The impugned order is issued on 24.06.2004 whereas the petitioner has filed the writ petition on 13.07.2005 i.e., after lapse of one year. All these years till date there is no consideration of the petitioners appointment and at this length of time, considering the petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate grounds does not arise. In view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra with regard to compassionate appointment and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order warrants no interference and the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS