HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P. No. 32609 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Lakshma Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The writ petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents in not considering his case for appointment on compassionate grounds against any suitable post in Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and prays for a consequential direction to consider his case. The case of the petitioner is that his father worked as a L.D. Clerk in Electricity Revenue Office, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District and while he was in service of the APSEB, the predecessor organization of the 1st respondent herein, died on 02.01.1978. He left behind his wife, two sons and two daughters in near indigent circumstances. When the mother of the writ petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate basis, her case was rejected on the ground that she was an illiterate and consequently, her case cannot be considered for appointment. However, since her children are at a very young age, she could not solicit appointment in their favour. After the writ petitioner had attained the age of majority, he has approached this Court by instituting Writ Petition No. 3492 of 1996. By the judgment dated 17.10.1997, this Court has observed that the writ petitioner cannot claim appointment on compassionate grounds after a period of 15 years. Hence, the action of the respondents in rejecting his candidature for appointment on compassionate grounds was upheld, but however, this Court has observed that it shall not preclude the respondents from considering the case of the petitioner against any future vacancy that might arise when regular appointments are undertaken by the respondent. When the respondents have taken up direct recruitment, once again, the writ petitioner has instituted Writ Petition No. 22092 of 1998. That Writ Petition was disposed of on 21.08.2001, directing the candidature of the writ petitioner to be considered along with those candidates sponsored by the employment exchange without insisting that his name should also be sponsored by the employment exchange. In response thereto, the General Manager of the respondents has passed orders on 05.11.2001, informing the writ petitioner that in view of the ban on direct recruitment imposed by the State Government, the respondents are not undertaking any direct recruitment and hence, the question of considering the candidature of the writ petitioner for appointment on direct recruitment basis would not arise. The present Writ Petition again seeks to agitate the question which stood concluded by the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No. 3492 of 1996, whrein this Court held that the case of the writ petitioner cannot be considered on compassionate basis after lapse of 15 years time after the death of his father. If the family of an employee has been able to withstand the vicissitudes of life for a long period, an inference can be drawn that they are able to sustain somehow and that they are not directly dependent upon the employment of one of the members of the family. As it is well-known, the appointments made on compassionate basis are a kind of an exception to a normal rule of throwing open recruitment process to all qualified persons in the open market. Therefore, I have no hesitation to dismiss this Writ Petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. It is abundantly made clear that the dismissal of this Writ Petition does not in any manner preclude the respondents from considering the candidature of the writ petitioner as and when they resort to make direct recruitment, provided he satisfies the rest of the norms of selection and qualifications. ------------------------------------ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J. 24th December 2010 ksld THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2961 of 2004 17th June 2010 CVRK