IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11881 of 2003 Between: M. Anjaiah S/o Marugu Mallaiah Agriculture Reaserch Station, N.g. Ranga University, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Acharya N.G. Ranga Agriculture, rep by Its Registrar, University Rejendranagar, Hyderabad. 2 Agronomist and Head Agriculture, Research Station, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agriculture University, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 3 The Secretary to the Governemnt, Agriculture and Cooperation (Agrl.III), Dept., Secretariat Builidns, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue any appropriate Writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment against any suitable post in the quota of the dependants of the employees retired on medical invalidation ground is arbitrary and illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of G.O.Ms. No. 44 G.A. (ser-A) Dept. dt 17-2-2003, consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on contract basis against any suitable post in the respondent University against the quota of the dependants of the employees retired on the grounds of Medical invalidation. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks declaration by way of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment in any suitable post in the quota reserved for the dependants of the employees retired on medical invalidation ground. 2. The father of the petitioner was working as a Class-IV employee in the 1st respondent-University. While in service, he met with an accident on 05.03.1999 and became handicapped. Therefore, he was permitted to retire on medical invalidation grounds with effect from 31.03.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents, claiming appointment on compassionate ground. The said claim of the petitioner was rejected by the 1st respondent-University, by an order dated 12.02.2002, passed in Memo No.22239/Services.III(A2)/2002. It was stated in the order, dated 12.02.2002 that the Government has issued orders, cancelling the provision for making appointments on compassionate ground, in the place of persons who retired on medical invalidation ground, in view of a Full Bench judgment of this Court, dated 12.10.2001, in writ petition No.13489 of 2000 and batch, but however, it is stated that the matter was carried further to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4210 of 2003 and batch, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by the judgment dated 12th August 2008, has set aside the judgment of this Court, and consequently, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, the Government has issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.661, General Administration (SER.G) Department, dated 23.10.2008, to consider the claims for compassionate appointments even in cases of retirement on medical invalidation ground, subject to certain conditions. 3. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is fairly submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-University that the University has adopted G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23rd October 2008, and in that view of the matter, the scheme is revised now to consider the claims of the dependents of the persons retired on medical invalidation ground, for appointment to suitable posts. 4. In view of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23rd October 2008, which are adopted by the 1st respondent-University, the order dated 12.02.2002, passed in Memo No.22239/Services.III (A2)/2002, is set aside with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23rd October 2008, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is allowed in part, to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th March 2009. ajr