IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33551 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AJUMAL K.A., KATTUTHANIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARADU, NETTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682304. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME(K)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.33551 OF 2009 (L) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P4 is an order passed by the first respondent, on an application made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The request was rejected only on the ground that he is a married person. 2. His father, who was a Sub Inspector of Police in Cochin, expired on 10.9.2006 while in service. Being the dependent of the deceased he made an application which resulted in Ext.P4 order. 3. In cases identical to this, this court has already taken the view that marriage by itself will not deprive the candidates of their right to get appointment on compassionate ground if they are otherwise eligible.(see Rev. Mother Delphine Mary V. State of Kerala (2002(1)KLT 137), St. Ignatius High School V. State of Kerala (2005 (3)KLT 1000), Ashkarali V. State of Kerala (2009(1)KLT SN 17 case No.18). 4. Therefore, rejection of the petitioner's claim by Ext.P4 is erroneous and Ext.P4 deserves to be invalidated and I do so. The WPC.No.33551/09 :2 : first respondent is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the law laid down in the judgment as referred to above and pass appropriate orders in the matter. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the Ist respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/