HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Dated: 23-12-2009 WRIT APPEAL No. 1301 OF 2009 Between: Smt. Alapu Bala Dhana Vijaya Laxmi ... APPELLANT AND The APSRTC rep., by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another ... RESPONDENTS HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1301 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) The husband of the appellant who was a driver with the respondents died while in service. Claiming compassionate appointment, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 23888 of 2003. An interim direction was granted by this Court directing the respondents to consider the appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment. Complaining of non-compliance with the said direction, the appellant filed Contempt Case No. 194 of 2004. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the writ petition and the contempt case are pending. During the pendency of the contempt case, the respondents issued proceedings dated 10-03-2004, whereby the appellant was informed that she stands at serial No.1 in the waiting list and that she will be appointed as and when a suitable vacancy arises. Without appointing the appellant, the respondents have issued notification dated 06-07-2009 whereby tenders were called for, for outsourcing certain works to be carried out by stenographers/typists and attenders. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 15793 of 2009 questioning the action of the respondents in calling for tenders without first appointing her. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the Corporation merely intended to outsource the works and that unless it seeks to fill up the vacancies on its own, the appellant can have no right to seek employment. We have heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. As noted above, the writ petition and the contempt case filed by the appellant are pending. The entitlement of the appellant to compassionate appointment turns on the outcome of the writ petition and the contempt case. As observed by the learned single Judge, the Corporation intended to outsource the works without making regular appointments to fill up the existing vacancies. Whether this action of the Corporation without appointing the appellant who was stated to have been placed at serial No.1 in the waiting list is legal and proper is required to be adjudicated in Writ Petition No. 23888 of 2003. Therefore, we refrain from giving any finding on this issue and instead, permit the appellant to pursue the said writ petition and Contempt Case No. 194 of 2004. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the said cases have been pending for a long time, they are not posted for hearing. Having regard to the nature of the case, we direct the Registry to post the above mentioned writ petition and the contempt case before the Court concerned on 18-01-2010 for hearing. Subject to the above direction, the writ appeal is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ appeal, WAMP No. 2723 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23-12-2009 ks