THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 15060 of 1999 Dated: 01.06.2010 Between: Smt. K.Mariyamma, Kurnool District. … Petitioner And The Additional D.I.G.P. Group Centre, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ petition No. 15060 of 1999 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not providing employment to the petitioner or her son in any suitable post on compassionate grounds is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s husband by name C.T.K.Devadanam was in the service of CRPF and he died on 07.02.1993 in an accident while discharging official duties. The present writ petition has been filed, aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents in considering the petitioner’s request to provide employment on compassionate grounds. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is explained that having considered the request of the petitioner the petitioner’s son by name Kanaka Raju was called for assessing his suitability for the post of CT (GD) in CRPF vide letter dated 23.11.1996. However, the petitioner’s son was found medically unfit and therefore, his candidature was rejected by the competent authority vide letter dated 20.08.1997. So far as the petitioner’s contention that the respondents ought to have considered the case of her son for appointment in any other suitable post, it is explained in the counter affidavit that as the petitioner’s son was found medically unfit it was not possible to consider his case for appointment even in any other post. In the light of the specific stand taken by the respondents, which could not be disputed by the petitioner, the mandamus as prayed for cannot be issued. However, the material available on record shows that at one point of time the petitioner was offered employment in a petrol pump to be launched by group center, CRPF, Banglore. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the same could not be materialized as the proposals for establishment of petrol pump were dropped. Even assuming that the petrol pump proposed at Banglore could not be established, the respondents could have considered the petitioner’s case to provide similar work at any other place. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation requesting the respondents to provide such alternative work. If any such representation is made and if the petitioner is found to be suitable and eligible to be accommodated in any other alternative employment, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 01.06.2010 KLP