IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 6048 of 1999 Between: K. Venkateswara Arun Kumar Alies K. Venkateswara Rao, R/o Tanuku, W.G.Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P., Rep by Principal Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Devep. Department, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Secretary, Municipal Administrative & Urban Devep. Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad-4 3 The Chief Secretary Govt Of A.P., Hyderabad. 4 The Commissioner & Director-cum-Appellate Commissioner Of Municipal Administrative , A.P., Hyderabad. 5 The Regional Director Cum Appellate Commissioner Of Municipal Administration, Rajahmundry-533 101 6 The Commissioner, Municipality, Tanuku-534 211 7 The Registrar, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the records relating toi the judgement Dt:8-10-98 in OA.no.4862/97 passed by the A.P. adminstrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same and as consequence thereof direct respondents 1to 6 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.PANDURANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Writ Petition No.6048 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the judgment rendered in O.A.No.4862 of 1997 dated 08-10-1998 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner ﬁled the above O.A., in eﬀect, seeking direction to the oﬃcial respondents to appoint him on compassionate grounds. The case of the petitioner is that he was adopted by Smt. K.Rangamma, who retired as High Grade Teacher in Tanuku Municipality on medical invalidation and that an application was made seeking compassionate appointment and the same was rejected on 06-06-1995. Thereafter, O.A.No.5419 of 1995 was ﬁled before the Tribunal challenging the rejection order. The Tribunal after due consideration directed the oﬃcial respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.504, dated 30-7-1980 and G.O.Ms.No.309, dated 04-7-1985 by treating the adopted son as a natural son. Subsequent thereto, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.186, M.A. dated 19-3-1997 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner ﬁled the present O.A. challenging the said G.O., and also G.O.Ms.No.612, dated 30-10-1991 to the extent of discriminating that adopted son is not entitled to compassionate appointment on medical invalidation. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions dismissed the O.A. Hence, the present writ petition is ﬁled by the applicant in O.A. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Government, while rejecting the case of the petitioner, has gone into the validity or otherwise of the adoption and it is impermissible for the Government to reject his case on the ground that adoption is not valid unless it is set aside by way of declaratory decree by a competent civil court. Learned counsel further submits that when the GO was in vogue, the case of the petitioner has to be considered. 5. Learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that the petitioner is adopted son of an employee and he is seeking compassionate appointment when such employee retired from service on medical invalidation and is still alive. He contended that the compassionate appointment on the ground of medical invalidation is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. We have considered the rival contentions advanced on either side and perused the record. It appears that the Tribunal had recorded the ﬁnding that the adoption of the petitioner is proper and legal, which had become ﬁnal, as the Government has not challenged the same. G.O.Ms.No.612 does not contemplate compassionate appointment to an adopted son or daughter if the employee is alive and on the basis of the said G.O. the claim of the petitioner was rejected. It is seen that the Government has gone into the validity of the adoption while rejecting the case of the petitioner. The Government does not have jurisdiction to decide as to whether there was valid adoption or not. In fact, the adoption deed was registered on 07-6-1985 in the Sub-Registrar’s Oﬃce at Eluru. The matter was pending with the Government for consideration when the relevant Scheme was in vogue. Having regard to the diﬃculties pleaded by the petitioner and the Scheme being a beneﬁcial one, it has to be interpreted in favour of the children of the employees seeking compassionate appointment. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 7. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to make a representation to the Government indicating all the circumstances, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, and on ﬁling such representation, the Government shall consider the same in accordance with the Scheme, GOs and instructions in vogue as on the date when the petitioner initially sought compassionate appointment, and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J. 11-09-2008 Bsc