IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 6631 of 2008 Between: Syed Rasheed S/o.Late Abdul hameed, H.No.3-4-141, Mahabub Subhaninagar, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 AP Power Genration Corporation Limited, Vidyut Soudha Somajiguda Hyderabad-82, rep.by its Managing Director. 2 The Chief General Manager (Admn), AP Genco Limited Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-82. 3 The Chief Engineer (O&M), Ramagundam Thermal Station, Ramagundam AP Genco Limited, Karimnagar District . .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue any appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd and 2nd respondents in rejecting the petitioner case vide Lr.No.CE/O&M?RTS/ADM/U.2/F.SPL.19/D.No.201/03 dated 27.5.2003 and Lr.No.GM(A)/DS/(P)/AS(R)/PO-A/A.2-348/2003 dated 8.7.2003 respectively and the action of the 1st respondent in not passing any orders on the petitioner representation dated 15.12.2006 as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Lr.No.CE/O&M/RTS/ACM/U2/F.SPL.19/D.No.201/03, dated 27.5.2003 and Lr.No.GM(A)DS(P)/AS(R)/PO-A.A2-348/2003 dated 8.7.2003 issued by the 3rd and 2nd respondents respectively and direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds by considering his representation dated 15.12.2006. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM(SC FOR AP GENCO) The Court made the following ORDER: The father of the petitioner, by name Abdul Hameed, was employed in Ramagundam Thermal Station. He died on 07.11.2002, while in service. The petitioner, being the son of the deceased employee, has made an application, dated 03.02.2003, to the second respondent with a request to provide compassionate appointment. Through letter No.348 of 2003, dated 08.07.2003, the second respondent rejected the application of the petitioner, on the ground that he is over aged. Subsequently, the petitioner enclosed the certificate issued by a Doctor and he requested the second respondent either to consider the age as certified by the Doctor or to relax the requirement as to the age. This representation was also rejected by the second respondent vide order, dated 08.07.2003. The petitioner assails the action of the respondents in not extending the relief of compassionate appointment. Sri Chandraiah Sunkara, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the age of the petitioner was taken into account on the basis of the family certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and to clarify the issue, the petitioner had submitted a certificate issued by the Medical Practitioner. He contents that the respondents had ample power to relax the qualification as to the age. There was no basis for not extending the same to the petitioner. Sri K.Chidambaram, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner did not come forward with the correct information and it is difficult to believe that he is an illiterate. The father of the petitioner died, while in service. The scheme for providing appointment on compassionate ground stipulates that the dependant must be within the prescribed age limit, apart from holding the qualifications. The petitioner did not enclose any proof about his date of birth, be it in the form of a birth certificate or the certificate issued by an educational institution. If one looks at the signature put by the petitioner, it would be difficult to believe that he is an illiterate. Withholding of necessary information by the petitioner would force one to draw an inference against him. Further, no individual can insist on the authorities to relax any conditions of appointment. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to grant the relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to work out his remedies as regards the sharing of terminal benefits that were extended by the respondents, consequent upon the death of his father. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ 28.03.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}