IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 11562 of 1999 Between: 1 Kunta Durgaiah S/o. Gattaiah R/o. Khammam District. 2 Angala Rayamallu S/o. Komaraiah R/o. Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Singareni Collieries Company Limited Rep by its Chairman & Managing Director Kothagudem, Khammam District. 2 The Genral Manager (p), S.C.C.L., Bellampally, Adilabad District. 3 The Colliery Manager, S.C.C.L., K.K-2, Incline, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 4 The Superintendent of Mines, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, K.K-2 Incline, Kothagudem, Khammam District. .....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, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the 2nd petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds of the dependents entered into, and also violative of Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India; and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner on compassionate grounds in any suitable post; and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of second petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds of dependants quota as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of second petitoner on compassionate grounds in any suitable post. There appears to be some dispute as to the fact whether the first petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation or was medically invalidated. There is no necessity of going into all the details. Whether the first petitioner was retired on the ground of medical invalidation or retired on attaining the age of superannuation is immaterial. So long as the second petitioner, who is said to be son- in-law of first petitioner, claims employment on the ground of medical invalidation of first petitioner, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment as per the ratio decided by this Court in GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. D.GOPAIAH[1], wherein it was held that compassionate appointments on medical invalidation does not satisfy the requirements of Article 16 of the Constitution. Any scheme formulated by State providing for such compassionate appointment is unconstitutional. Therefore, if there is any scheme available and assuming that first petitoner was retired on the ground of medical invalidation, second petitioner is not entitled for seeking compassionate appointment. In view of the above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 14.3.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.11562 of 1999 14.3.2008 [1] 2001(6) ALD 759 (FB)