WP/24540/2003 of K.Jameer Basha, Unemployee Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C., on 26 December 2006

ORAL ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of therespondents in not considering the case of the petitioner forappointment in terms of circular dated 30.7.2003.

The facts in brief are as under.

The father of the petitioner while working with the respondentcorporation as Assistant Depot clerk died on 9.9.2000. The mother ofthe petitioner, submitted an application dated 4.7.2001 seekingemployment to his younger son and the same was rejected byproceedings dated 10.12.2002 on the ground that he is under-agedand not qualified for any post. Thereafter, petitioner submitted anapplication dated 13.12.2002 for appointment to any suitable post oncompassionate grounds. Questioning the action of the respondents innot considering his case and considering the cases of other similarlysituate persons, petitioner filed W.P. No. 8372 of 2003. The said writpetition was dismissed by order dated 12.9.2003. The petitionerclaims that in terms of circular dated 30.7.2003 he is entitled toappointment on compassionate grounds and in view of the dismissalof the earlier writ petition, his case is not being considered. That thepetitioner submitted a representation dated 12.10.2003 and till date noaction is taken. Hence, the writ petition.

A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents denying the averments made in the writ petition and stating that in terms of theapplication of the petitioner dated 19.7.2003, his name was registeredin the list of Bread Winner Scheme as on 18.8.2003. It is further statedthat there are excess conductors in Kurnool region and about 16candidates who were selected and trained to the post of Conductorunder Bread Winner Scheme are awaiting appointment orders. It isalso stated that petitioner cannot compare his case with the candidatesappointed in another region and the case of the petitioner would beconsidered as per his turn against a clear vacancy.

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned StandingCounsel for respondent corporation.

Admittedly, the father of the petitioner worked in Kurnool regionand petitioner submitted his application for appointment oncompassionate grounds in Kurnool region, as such he cannot comparehis case with the candidates of other regions. The main object ofproviding compassionate appointment to the family member of adeceased is to enable the family of the deceased to tide over thesudden crises that befalls on thedeath of the sole bread winner andgrant of compassionate employment is not a matter of right as held by Apex Court in Shri Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others[[1]]. In the present case, due to non availability of vacanciesand excess conductors in the region, the name of the petitioner wasregistered in the list of bread winner scheme on 18.8.2003 and thesame would be considered as per his turn in seniority. Since alreadya list of eligible candidates entitled for appointment on compassionategrounds is being maintained by the respondents and name of thepetitioner was already registered, no direction can be given to the respondents to appoint the petitioner,leaving aside the candidates who are seniors to the petitioner in the list of beneficiaries. Thus the contention of the petitioner that in viewof the dismissal of the earlier writ petition, his case is not beingconsidered, cannot be accepted.

For the foregoing reasons, I see no reason to interfere with thematter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

____________

N.V.RAMANA,J

DATE: 26.12.2006TVK

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

WRIT PETITION NO : 24540 of2003

Conclusion

DATED: 26.12.2006

[1]1994 (4) SCC 138