IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13365 of 2006 Between: E. Subba rao S/o. Late Guru laxmaiah R/o. Kothuru-Tadepally, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University (ANGRAU) Rep. by its Registrar, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. 2 Associate Director of Research, Regional Agricultural Research Station, ANGRAU, Lam, Guntur-34 .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of respondents in not regularizing services of the petitioner as Attender in the existing vacancies belonging to Backward Class-A Group, by not considering the same as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dt. 12-11-1994 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory, an act of victimization and unfair labour practice and also violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and grant all consequential beneﬁts, and pass such other order or orders as deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.SURESH REDDY (SC FOR ANGRAU) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13365 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is misconceived. It appears, the father of the petitioner died on 12.11.1967 while he was in service. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he made a representation to the respondents on 19.4.2005 seeking compassionate appointment, there was no response. Admittedly, the petitioner was one year old at the time of his father’s death. He attained majority in the year 1984, but he made representation to the respondents in the year 2005 for compassionate appointment after a lapse of 19 long years. In fact, the petitioner has not attained majority within the time limit prescribed for considering his case for compassionate appointment. Therefore, I am of the view that no compassionate appointment can be considered in a case of this nature. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is working as casual labour, his services shall not be disturbed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 13.10.2008 DA THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13365 of 2006 13.10.2008