Denial Of Compassionate Appointment To Higher Post Despite Educational Qualifications & Eligibility Is Arbitrary: Andhra Pradesh HC

Background Facts

The petitioner's father was working as an Examiner of Copies in the court of the Junior Civil Judge. He passed away in April 2004 while in service. His son (petitioner) was appointed on a compassionate basis in December 2004. However, his son was appointed as an Attender.

The son filed a petition seeking appointment as a Junior Assistant because he possessed the required educational qualifications. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the District Judge to consider his representation. However, the District Judge rejected his request.

The District Judge relied on a High Court circular related to promotions. It was held that the subsequent promotion of the petitioner would be governed by the relevant Rules of the High Court, in ROC.No.2536/98-C1(1), dated 23.03.1999.

Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner filed another writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

It was argued by the petitioner that the rejection of the representation was clearly arbitrary. Further, it was submitted that rejection by the District Judge contradicted a previous decision in the case of Kum. P. Thulasi.

In the case of Kum. P. Thulasi, a woman was appointed on a compassionate basis as an Attender. She sought appointment as a Field Assistant in view of her educational qualifications. However, her representation was not considered, therefore she approached the High Court. It was held by the High Court that the dependants of deceased persons were eligible to be considered for any category whose pay is equal or lower to that of Junior Assistant if the candidate meets the required qualifications and standards. The Division Bench directed the District Judge to consider the representation of that woman in line with the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.612, dated 30.10.1991. Subsequently, the District Judge had appointed her by transfer to the post of Field Assistant temporarily. Subsequently she was regularized.

It was further argued by the petitioner that the District Judge did not consider the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.612, which would have entitled the petitioner to be appointed as a Junior Assistant. However he had relied upon a Circular bearing ROC.No.2536/98-C1(1), dated 23.03.1999, to reject the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, the rejection order was unsustainable.

On the other hand, the respondents contended that the order of District Judge was a reasoned order. Therefore, rejection order based on the circular in ROC.No.2536/98-C1(1), dated 23.03.1999 was justified.

Findings of the Court

It was noted by the Division Bench that the District Judge had wrongly applied the circular dated 23.03.1999 which was related to promotions for selection posts and non-selection posts. It was observed that the circular related to promotion would not bar the appointment of a person under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme, to the post of Junior Assistant, if such a person was eligible and had the necessary educational qualifications.

It was also observed by the Division Bench that the District Judge had considered the representation of Kum. P. Thulasi favourably in terms of G.O.Ms.No.612.

It was held by the Division Bench that the petitioner was eligible and qualified to be appointed as a Junior Assistant. It was further held that the rejection of the representation of the petitioner by the District Judge, on the basis of a Circular related to promotions was arbitrary. Therefore, order of rejection of the District Judge was set aside by the Division Bench.

The respondents were directed to regularize the service of the petitioner by treating his appointment from the date of rejection as a Junior Assistant and to give necessary promotions and time scale of pay.

However, the payment of back wages was denied because the petitioner discharged his functions as an Attender where he had been paid for such work. It was further directed that exercise should be completed and the pay scale of the petitioner should be fixed within a period of eight weeks.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Pidugu Sasi Kanth Reddy vs. Dist. Judge Kadapa & Ors.

Case No. : Writ Petition No. 23473/2011

Counsel for the Petitioner : Dondappagari Sai Siddi Srikhar

Counsel for the Respondents : GP For General Administration, K Srinivasa Rao