HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3750 of 2010 Dated: 12-03-2010 Between: P. Govindamma & another. … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Endowments Department & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3750 of 2010 ORDER: The husband of the 1st petitioner, who is the father of the 2nd petitioner, was working in the Last Grade service of the 3rd respondent-temple. While in service, he died on 23rd of April 2007. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed application, seeking compassionate appointment to the 2nd petitioner. The 3rd respondent, having considered the request of petitioners, sent proposals to the 1st respondent, who by impugned order, dated 12th January 2010, passed in Memo L.Dis.No.A2/44357/2008, rejected the said request, on the ground that the 2nd petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of Last Grade Service. 2. In this writ petition, it is the case of petitioners that as per Rules, the qualifications prescribed to the Last Grade Service, are only for the post of Attender, but so far as Sweeper/Scavenger are concerned, no such qualifications are prescribed. It is the grievance of petitioners that though the 2nd petitioner is eligible for appointment to the post of Sweeper/Scavenger, his case has not been considered by the respondents for compassionate appointment. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, it is stated that as per the Rules applicable to the Last Grade Services, one has to qualify in 10th Class for holding the post of Attender. It is further stated that as the 2nd petitioner has studied upto 5th Class, and in view of the claim by the other brother of the 2nd petitioner, he was asked to produce no objection certificate from the other family members, so as to consider his claim for suitable post, based on his qualification. 4. It is not in dispute that the 2nd petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of Attender, at the same time, there is no reason for not considering his case for any other suitable post, viz., Sweeper/Scavenger, if he is eligible to hold the said post. In the counter affidavit, it is stated by respondent No.3 that the case of 2nd petitioner will be considered for suitable post, basing on his qualifications. With regard to getting of ‘no objection certificate’ from the other family members, it is to be noted that in the application filed by the wife of the deceased i.e. the 1st petitioner herein, it is categorically stated that the 1st son and the daughter of the 1st petitioner are living separately after their marriages, as such, she has requested to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to the 2nd petitioner. It is also stated that the 1st petitioner is staying with the 2nd petitioner. 5. As the very object of compassionate appointment is to benefit the members of the family, who are left unsupported after the demise of the employee who was in service, and in view of the statement made by the 1st petitioner that she is staying with the 2nd petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner for compassionate appointment in any suitable post, for which, he is eligible and qualified. However, such consideration shall be without insisting for any ‘no objection certificate’ from other family members of the petitioners’ family. Respondents shall pass appropriate orders on the representation of petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 12th March 2010 ajr