IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 10061 of 1999 Between: Smt.M.N. Laxmi W/o. Late M. Shankaraiah R/o.3-12- Doolapalli Panchayat, Qutbullapur Mandal of Rangareddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Mushirabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Picket, Secunderabad. 3 Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Mushirabad, 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for impugned order issued by the Respondent No.2 in his letter No.M1/684(34)/98-HCR dt.25-7-98 in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the post of conductor on the ground that she did not possess the requisite education qualification i.e. minimum 8th class pass, instead of considering candidature of the petitioner to the post of cleaner for which, education of read and write is sufficient enough and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary unjust and violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, besides being violative of principles of natural justice, while issuing a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of cleaner or to any other post to which she is found eligible, in view of her educational qualification with effect from the date of her applications with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.GOVERDHANACHARY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10061 of 1999 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to appoint the petitioner to the post of Cleaner or to any other suitable post to which she is eligible, in view of her educational qualifications, on compassionate grounds, since her husband, who was a Conductor with the A.P.S.R.T.C., died while in service. 2. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, would place before this Court a copy of G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 05.09.2001 whereunder a ban was imposed on compassionate appointments in the respondent Corporation and, vide Memo dated 30.07.2005, in lieu of compassionate appointment, ex.gratia ranging from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- was decided to be paid. Learned Standing Counsel would fairly state that, while the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment, the Corporation was ready to examine the petitioner’s entitlement to be paid ex.gratia. 3. Recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, the respondents are directed to examine whether the petitioner is entitled for ex.gratia, in lieu of compassionate appointment, in accordance with the relevant schemes in force, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and in case she is so entitled, to pay the amount determined within a month thereafter. 4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 29th February, 2008 v v To 1. 2 CCs to 2. 2 CD copies.