WP/2475/2026 of A SAVITHRI Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 5 February 2026

1. A SAVITHRI, W/O. LATE A. CHANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. 12-114, SRINIVASA NAGAR, MR PALLI, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI (URBAN) MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238

2. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAM, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT -571501

3. THE DEVASTHANAM EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAM, TIRUPATI-571501

...RESPONDENT(S):

::2::

This Court made the following ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioners for the following relief:

“to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of a mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent No.3, in issuing proceedings bearing Roc. 80021/186/2022-DEO-SEC-TTD dated 03.04.2024 thereby rejecting the application of petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds in place of her deceased husband Late A. Changaiah without assigning any reasons as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional besides being violative of Article 14,16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to consider and provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner and pass…”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments for the respondent No.1 and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent No.3, by issuing proceedings bearing Roc. No.80021/186/2022-DEO- SEC-TTD dated 03.04.2024, rejected the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment in place of her deceased husband, Late A. Changaiah, without assigning any reasons, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. On perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 03.04.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent, it is evident that though the petitioner had

::3::

submitted an application for compassionate appointment, the respondent authorities rejected the same by a cryptic, one-line order stating that it was “not feasible as per the rules in vogue.” The said order does not disclose which specific rule was violated, what eligibility criteria were lacking, or the reasons for such rejection. No reference has been made to any statutory provisions or guidelines governing compassionate appointments, nor does the order indicate that the petitioner’s application was considered in accordance with the applicable rules, policies, or guidelines.

5. Considering the same, the impugned proceedings dated 03.04.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent are hereby set aside, and the matter is remanded to the competent authorities for fresh consideration of the petitioner’s application dated 17.10.2022, strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions, rules, and guidelines governing compassionate appointments. If required, the petitioner shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the respondents shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

::4::

As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Dt:06.02.2026 klk

::5::

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.2475 of 2026

Dt:06.02.2026 klk