* THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD +WRIT PETITION Nos.1227 and 3275 of 2008 %Date: 22-02-2008 W.P.No. 1227 of 2008 : #Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Home (WNT), Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND N. Prabhudas, S/o. Late N. Aron Rao, D.No. 26-38-44, 16th lane, A.T. Agraharam, Guntur, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) !Counsel for the Petitioners : GP FOR SERVICES I ^Counsel for the Respondent : MR.P.NAVEEN RAO W.P.No.3275 of 2008 : #Between: The Government of A.P., rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home (WNT) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others. ……. PETITIONER(S) AND N. Prabhudas S/o late N. Aron Rao D. No. 26-38-44, 16th lane, A.T. Agraharam, Guntur, Guntur District. ..... RESPONDENT(S) !Counsel for the Petitioners : GP FOR SERVICES I ^Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. P. NAVEEN RAO <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred 1. (1996) 1 SCC 301 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos.1227 and 3275 of 2008 WRIT PETITION No. 1227 of 2008 Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Home (WNT), Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent of Police, Guntur District at Guntur. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND N. Prabhudas, S/o. Late N. Aron Rao, D.No. 26-38-44, 16th lane, A.T. Agraharam, Guntur, Guntur District. .....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 issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 2-8-2007 in O.A.No.6015/2006 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and pass such order or further orders Counsel for the Petitioner : GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent : MR.P.NAVEEN RAO The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.3275 of 2008 Between: 1 The Government of A.P., rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home (WNT) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of Police Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent of Police, Guntur District at Guntur. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND N. Prabhudas S/o late N. Aron Rao D. No. 26-38-44, 16th lane, A.T. Agraharam, Guntur, Guntur District. ..... 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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 2-8-2007 in O.A. No. 1381/2006 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set a side the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and pass such other or further orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. P. NAVEEN RAO The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.NO.1227 OF 2008 AND W.P.NO.3275 OF 2008 ORAL COMMON ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Since these two writ petitions are inter-related, with the consent of both the parties, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Both the W.P.Nos.1227 and 3275 of 2008 are directed against the common order, dated 02.08.2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), allowing the applications O.A.Nos.6015 and 1381 of 2006, respectively, setting aside the orders, passed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home (WNT) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, in Memo No.26992/WNT/A1/2005, dated 13.02.2006, and Memo No.8795/WNT/A1/2006-1, dated 24.04.2006, impugned before it, and consequently directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the applicant therein for appointment as Police Constable, if he possesses the qualifications required and was within the maximum age, prescribed under the Special Rules, without applying G.O.Ms.No.687, GAD, dated 03.10.1977. 4. Petitioners are the respondents and the respondent is the applicant, in the O.As., before the Tribunal. 5. For the sake of convenience, in this common order, the petitioners and the respondent will be referred to as “the respondents” and “the applicant”, respectively. 6. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the father of the applicant died on 24.12.1981, while working as Armed Reserve Police Head Constable; that, at that point of time, the applicant was aged about six years and five months; that the applicant had three brothers and two sisters, apart from mother; that, as on the date of the death of his father, nobody in the family was eligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds in the Police Department, nor there was any application by anyone, including his mother; that years passed-by and after about 18 years, as contemplated under the G.O., that was in force, permitting admission of orphaned children of the deceased police personnel, the applicant joined the Police Boys Hostel at Guntur, as a special case, to study I Year Intermediate Course and completed the same having stayed in the Hostel from 01.03.1999 to 15.04.2000; that after completion of the said course, for the first time, he made an application on 04.11.2004 to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and that, earlier also, he alleged to have made a representation in the year 1999, basing on which the third respondent referred the matter to the second respondent recommending the case of the applicant for appointment as Police Constable. Since the same was not considered, he made the said representation, dated 04.11.2004, seeking appointment as Police Constable on compassionate grounds, which was rejected by the first respondent, through Memo No.26992/WNT/A1/2005, dated 13.02.2006. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed O.A.No.1381 of 2006, seeking to quash the Memo No.26992/WNT/A1/2005, dated 13.02.2006, issued by the first respondent, whereby the application, dated 04.11.2004, submitted by the applicant, seeking appointment as Police Constable, on compassionate grounds, was rejected on the ground that he did not attain the majority within two years from the date of the death of his father. 8. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, it is apt to extract the interim order, dated 20.03.2006, passed by the Tribunal, while admitting O.A.No.1381 of 2006, which is thus: “The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the orders of the Government contained in G.O.Ms.No.320, Home (Pol.C) Department, dated 21.05.1981 and without reference to the orders in Memo No.26992/WNT/A1/2005, dated 13.02.2006 of the 1st respondent, pending further orders.” 9. Pursuant to the above interim order, the first respondent has passed the order in Memo No.8795/WNT/A1/2006-1, dated 24.04.2006, rejecting the application of the applicant on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment was highly belated and no exemption can be granted. Challenging the said Memo., dated 24.04.2006, the applicant filed O.A.No.6015 of 2006. 10. The Tribunal, having heard both the matters together, considering the G.Os., and other material available on record, by the impugned common order, dated 02.08.2007, allowed both the O.As., setting aside the Memos., impugned therein. Challenging the said common order of the Tribunal, the respondents have preferred the present writ petitions. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is entitled for appointment as Police Constable on compassionate grounds basing on G.O.Ms.No.320 Home (Police-C) Department, dated 21.05.1981. 12. Admittedly, the intention of the Government in issuing G.O.Ms.No.320, dated 21.05.1981, could be seen, in the preamble (paragraph No.1) of the said G.O., that to facilitate the orphaned children of the deceased police personnel, who are studying in Police Boys Hostel, since they cannot avail the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds as they will be studying in schools after the death of their parents without attaining the majority or acquiring the minimum general educational qualifications and by the time they attain the majority and complete the minimum qualifications, they will not be eligible to apply for appointment in Government Service within the time limit prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.687, GAD, dated 03.10.1977, agreed to accept the proposal of the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, to grant exemption to them. 13. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, the effect of G.O.Ms.No.320, dated 21.05.1981, could be seen at paragraph No.2 of the said G.O., which is thus: “Government after careful consideration of the proposal of the Director General of Police, exempt from the employment exchange rules the candidates who are/were members of Police Boys Hostel in the State so as to rehabilitate the families of the deceased police personnel.” 14. From the above, it is obvious that the said G.O., was introduced with a specific intention to exempt the members of Police Boys Hostel from being drawn from Employment Exchange for the purpose of appointment in the Police Department. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant places heavy reliance on Circular Memo No.294/R&T-II-1/91, dated 21.08.1991, wherein a reference has been made as regards G.O.Ms.No.687, dated 03.10.1977, and also G.O.Ms.No.320, dated 21.05.1981, which have already been referred to. 16. Further, at paragraph No.4 of the said Circular Memo, dated 21.08.1991, it has been specifically stated as under: “The temporary appointment of a spouse or child of a deceased Government servant can be considered for regular appointment without subjecting them to the normal process of recruitment as provided in the relevant recruitment rules provided such family members of the deceased servant satisfy the conditions of recruitment prescribed in the rules such as age and educational qualification. Further the Government have directed that the cases of spouse/dependents of deceased police personnel for appointment to the post of Police Constable shall be kept outside the purview of the State Level Police Recruitment Board constituted in G.O.Ms.No.298, Home (Pol.C) Department, dtd.9-5-1986 and permit the Unit Officers (i.e., appointing authorities) to make such appointments to the Police Constables subject to the condition that they possess the qualification prescribed for the post of Police Constable and also subject to the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.687, G.A. (Ser.A) Department, dtd.3-10-1977.” 17. From a bare reading of the above, it appears that the temporary appointment of spouses or children of the deceased Government Servants are amenable for consideration without subjecting them to the normal process of recruitment, meaning thereby -- the candidates, who are sought to be appointed on compassionate grounds, were relaxed from being subjected to the routine process of recruitment. 18. Further, in G.O.Ms.No.687, dated 03.10.1977, and also G.O.Ms.No.320, dated 21.05.1981, it appears that relaxation has been made by the Government, exercising its jurisdiction conferred under Rule 48 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962 (for brevity “the Rules”). Consequently, it was decided that a member of the Police Boys Hostel, who had passed the S.S.C., and fulfills the requisite conditions for the post of Police Constable, can be appointed, keeping in view the provisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.320, dated 21.05.1981 and other G.Os., mentioned therein, without following the routine recruitment procedure. 19. Therefore, from the above, it is explicitly clear that almost a sweeping relaxation had been accorded to the children of police personnel, who died in harness, by providing them accommodation in the Police Boys Hostel and after attaining the majority and acquiring prescribed qualification, they were preferred for appointment to the post of Police Constable with a further relaxation of being subjected them to the routine procedure of recruitment. 20. During the course of hearing of the matter, we thought it appropriate to look into G.O.Ms.No.400, Government Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 12.09.1996, pertaining to the scheme of appointments on compassionate grounds, wherein as many as 28 other G.Os., issued from time to time, have been referred to. 21. The purport of the said G.O.Ms.No.400, dated 12.09.1996, is thus: “Government have reviewed the scheme of compassionate appointments to the dependents of deceased Government Employees who died in harness and have decided that the proposals for providing appointments to the dependents of the deceased Government Employees which are totally in conformity with the existing instructions on the scheme should only be considered and no case for relaxation of any of the conditions stipulated in the scheme shall be entertained.” 22. The conspicuous aspect that is to be taken note of is that, while referring to so many other G.Os., in connection with the scheme of appointments on compassionate grounds, the crucial Circular Memo., dated 21.08.1991, issued by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, was not specifically referred to. 23. As already noticed, the Circular Memo, dated 21.08.1991, refers to certain relaxations made by the Government, exercising its jurisdiction under Rule 48 of the Rules. 24. Therefore, a conjoint reading of G.O.Ms.No.687, dated 03.10.1977, and G.O.Ms.No.320, dated 21.05.1981, read with Circular Memo No.294/R&T-II-1/91, dated 21.08.1991, gives a different meaning altogether. The totality of the effect of these G.Os., and the Circular Memo is granting of relaxation at several stages for appointment on compassionate grounds to the spouses or children of the deceased police personnel, who died while in service. 25. On the other hand, G.O.Ms.No.400, dated 12.09.1996, in a way removed all the relaxations, which were granted earlier. 26. It is again to be noted that by the time G.O.Ms.No.400, dated 12.09.1996, was issued, the applicant was not qualified by passing S.S.C., nor was admitted into Police Boys Hostel, as an orphan. 27. At this stage, at the cost of repetition, we may point out that the applicant was having three brothers and two sisters, apart from mother, as on the date of G.O.Ms.No.320, dated 21.05.1981, which was actually meant for the orphans, and even as on today. It is to be further noted that the relaxation was extended not only to the children, but also to the spouses of the deceased Government Servants in the Police Department. But, the spouse, who was living as on the date of the death of the deceased, in the instant case, did not make any application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The eligibility or otherwise of the spouse is not in dispute, in any manner, by either of the parties. Therefore, that aspect pales into irrelevancy and we are not inclined to go into that aspect and make any comments. 28. The Tribunal, it appears, had relied much upon the Circular Memo No.294/R&T-II-1/91, dated 21.08.1991, by which certain relaxations were granted by the Head of the Department i.e., the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, exercising the jurisdiction under Rule 48 of the Rules. 29. Now, the question that falls for consideration, in the present writ petitions, is, what is the effect of G.O.Ms.No.400, dated 12.09.1996, and also the effect of the earlier G.Os? In other words, the question would be as to whether the relaxations granted under various G.Os., can be made applicable after the cessation of the so called relaxations by virtue of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.400, dated 12.09.1996? 30. Prima-facie, by the language employed in the said G.O., it has been explicitly made clear that no other cases for relaxation will be considered. 31. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant brought to the notice of this Court, at this juncture, the Memo No.52185/Pol.A2/97- 2, dated 18.05.1998, and submits that the intention of the Government is obviously to reiterate the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds in the Police Department. 32. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, it is apt to extract the relevant portion of the said Memo, dated 18.05.1998, which reads thus: “With reference to the letters cited, the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari is informed that the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.320, Home (Pol.C) Department, dated 21-5-1981 (copy enclosed) are in force and the scheme introduced in the said Government Order is applicable to the minor dependents of the Police Personnel, who are/were members of Police Boys Hostels and applying for jobs after attaining majority.” 33. From the above, it is to be noticed that there is no reference of G.O.Ms.No.400, dated 12.09.1996, in the said Memo. Therefore, we feel it difficult to gather the real intention and object of various G.Os., and the Memo., issued by the Government or the Head of the Department concerned, which are incoherent and inexplicable to some extent. 34. Furthermore, it is to be noticed that, in the year 1999, the applicant had joined the Police Boys Hostel, which was originally meant for the orphaned children of the deceased police personnel only. It is to be seen that, in the year 1999 itself, the applicant appears to have made a representation to the Head of the Department, seeking appointment as Police Constable on compassionate grounds, on which no orders have been passed. Then, after completion of his Intermediate Course by staying in the Police Boys Hostel, he made another representation in the year 2004 i.e., after five years of completion of his Intermediate course. We are not able to comprehend as to why the applicant had kept quiet for five long years after completion of his Intermediate course and filed O.A.No.1381 of 2006, only after the order of rejection was passed. 35. When non-consideration of the representation as regards one’s right is obvious, it is for the aggrieved to approach the appropriate Court of law, within a reasonable period. 36. In the instant case, when it is the assertion of the applicant that he made a representation in the year 1999 itself, being qualified for appointment as Police Constable, and no orders were passed, he ought not have waited for five long years to file the O.A. In other words, he ought to have approached the Tribunal immediately thereafter or within a reasonable period, questioning the inaction on the part of the competent authority. 37. Furthermore and as already pointed out, from a reading of the preamble of G.O.Ms.No.320, dated 21.05.1981, the facility extended to the minor children of the deceased police personnel, who joined the Police Boys Hostel till they attain the majority, was availed of by the applicant in the year 1999 only. In a way, by the date of joining in the Police Boys Hostel, he completed S.S.C., on the basis of which, he made a representation seeking appointment as Police Constable on compassionate grounds. When it was not considered, he kept quiet for five years and now makes a claim that he was a member of the Police Boys Hostel, therefore, he has a right to be considered for appointment as Police Constable on compassionate grounds. 38. We are unable to agree with the above contention of the applicant. Mere admission of the applicant in the Police Boys Hostel, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.320, dated 21.05.1981, is not a ground for appointment as Police Constable on compassionate grounds. Obviously, the applicant appears to have admitted into Police Boys Hostel, after he attained the majority, for prosecution of Intermediate course. 39. It is to be remembered that the actual death of the deceased had taken place in the year 1981. For the first time, the applicant made a representation seeking appointment as Police Constable in the year 1999 and having kept quiet for five long years, he made another representation and the same was rejected in the year 2004. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the O.A., before the Tribunal. Therefore, the case of the applicant for appointment as Police Constable on compassionate grounds cannot be considered. 40. In our view, this is contrary to the judgment of the apex Court in JAGDISH PRASAD vs. STATE OF BIHAR [1] , wherein it was held— “The very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971, in which year the appellant was four years’ old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter. In other words, if that contention is accepted, it amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased government servant which cannot be encouraged, de hors the recruitment rules.” 41. From the above, it is clear that the case of the applicant is hit by the principles of laches. 42. Furthermore, it is on record that the applicant was not an orphan as on the date of death of his father, since he was having three brothers and two sisters, apart from mother. The concept of appointment on compassionate grounds is exclusively meant for the sustenance of the immediate family members of the deceased. 43. In the instant case, by afflux of time i.e., more than 22 years, the said purpose has lost. After a lapse of 22 years, we cannot think of the aspect of sustenance of immediate family members of the deceased as on the date of the death of the deceased and that the conduct of the applicant in approaching the Tribunal, after a long lapse of five years, also adds strength to our view for rejection of his claim for appointment as Police Constable on compassionate grounds. 44. For the foregoing, the impugned common order is liable to be set aside. 45. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed, at the stage of admission, setting aside the impugned common order, dated 02.08.2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.Nos.6015 and 1381 of 2006, respectively. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 NOTE: L.R.COPY TO BE MARKED: B/O MSR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Home (WNT), Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent of Police, Guntur District at Guntur. 4. Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Services-I, High Court Buildings, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 5. Two C.D. copies THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos.1227 and 3275 of 2008 (Common Order of the Division Bench delivered by the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 (MSR) [1] (1996) 1 SCC 301