IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 26567 of 2008 Between: 1 Chitti Chinnammadu W/o.late Jagannadham R/o.D.No.1-4-1(5), Kummari Street, Balaga, Srikakulam. 2 Chitti Bhaskar Rao S/o.late Jagannadham R/o.D.No.1-4-1(5), Kummari Street, Balaga, Srikakulam. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Registrar (Management), Hyderabad. 2 The District Judge, Srikakulam. .....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 writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Mandamus to declare the order of Respondent No.2 in D.Dis.No. 1515/Estt/2006 dated 23.3.2006 and the proceedings of Respondent No.1 in Roc.No.1063/2008-C-6 dated 25.6.2008 is arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice in not providing appointment to the Petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds on death of late Chitti Jagannadham and to direct the Respondent No.2 to provide appointment to the Petitioner No.2 in any existing suitable post in Srikakulam District taking into consideration his educational qualifications and suitability and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SOMESWARA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: (SC FOR APHC)D.V.SITHARAM MURTHY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.26567 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The 2nd petitioner’s application, dated 17.02.2006, for compassionate appointment in the unit of the 2nd respondent on account of the death of his father Ch.Jagannadham in harness, was rejected by the 2nd respondent, by the order dated 24.03.2006, by recording that Sri Ch.Jagannadham had died on 10.04.1996, the application is belated and could not be considered in terms of the scheme formulated by the State Government for compassionate appointment, spelt out in G.O.Ms.Nos.349, 165 and 612 GAD (Ser-A) Department, dated 12.06.1986, 20.03.1989 and 30.10.1991 respectively, read with the Government Memo No.618, dated 17.12.1979. The petitioner preferred a revision thereagainst to the 1st respondent who concurred with the conclusion of the 2nd respondent and by the proceedings, dated 25.06.2008, rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds was belated and beyond the period stipulated in the several orders of the Government in respect of the claim for compassionate appointment. This Court finds no error in the application of law or exercise of discretion, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution in judicial review. The writ petition is, accordingly, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ___________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR,J 05.12.2008 v v