THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 17143 of 2007 Between: P. Sunanda D/o P. Premaiah age 47 years ..... PETITIONER AND The High Court o Andhra Pradesh represented by its Registrar (Administration) High Court Buildings, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners: Counsel for the Respondents: . The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the inaction on the part of the sole respondent in not providing her with suitable employment on compassionate grounds. Brief facts of the case are that the elder sister of the petitioner Miss P. Vana Kumari worked in the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh as Examiner, and she died in harness while in employment on 3.6.2001 in an accident occurred near Kamineni Hospital at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. It is stated that she is unmarried and used to maintain her family members including the petitioner. As the petitioner’s husband deserted the petitioner, her entire family is under starvation due to sudden demise of her sister who was the sole breadwinner for her family. As there is no other source of income for eaking out livelihood, the petitioner made an application on 30.6.2005 seeking for appointment on compassionate grounds relying upon G.O.Ms.No. 612 dated 30.10.1991 and the same is pending consideration. Therefore, the petitioner submitted reminders on 17.11.2005 and 17.10.2006 but they are still pending consideration. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been separated from her husband and there is no other person to look after her and her children and therefore, her case may be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. On the other hand, Sri G. Vidyasagar, counsel appearing for the respondent, has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS V. SAJAD AHMED MIR[1], wherein at paragraph 11 it is held as under: “11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought “compassion”, the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say ‘goodbye’ to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14.” He was also drawn our attention to another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in LIC OF INDIA VS. ASHA RAMCHANDRA AMBEKAR[2] wherein, it was indicated that the High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and have perused the material made available on record. The contention of the petitioner that her case should be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds merely because she has been separated from her husband does not hold good and she has to fulfill the criterion laid down under the scheme and in the absence of the same, she cannot claim employment as a matter of right. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS VS. SAJAD AHMED MIR (supra-1) and in LIC OF INDIA VS. ASHA RAMCHANDRA AMBEKAR (supra-2), the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 12.08.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 766 [2] (1994) 2 SCC 718