IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Friday, October 21, 2011 Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR W.P.No. 4634 of 2000 Between: P. Leela Krishna ..Petitioner and The Government of India and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR W.P.No. 4634 of 2000 O r d e r: The point which arises for determination in this writ petition is whether the petitioner, who is the son of a deceased-employee of State Bank of India is entitled to a compassionate appointment in the said bank as his father died while in service. 2. The point arises in the following circumstances – The petitioner is the son of one – late P. Nagaraja who died on 07-03- 1995, while working as an Officer in State Bank of India, Chittoor Branch. Admittedly the petitioner made an application to the concerned authority of the said bank for compassionate appointment and he was also interviewed on 15.6.1995 by the said authority. Subsequently the Zonal Office of the State Bank of India, Tirupathi by its letter dated: 8-2-1997 informed the petitioner that the Central Government did not approve the proposal for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. In effect this letter means that the bank had rejected the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the above letter dated:8-2-1997 of the Bank and he is also seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the authorities of the State Bank of India in refusing compassionate appointment to him as illegal and to direct them to issue such compassionate appointment. 4. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and they also filed additional counter affidavits. Their plea is that there is no statutory Rule or any Scheme framed under a statute which gives a right to the petitioner to claim compassionate appointment. In addition to this, they also pleaded that the petitioner’s father was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry on certain irregularities and was placed under suspension; but was given back his job subsequently and the tenor of the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit reads that this is also a ground to reject the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. It is also pleaded by them that the petitioner’s mother is in receipt of pension of Rs.4,280-00 per month and the family is not in financial distress for giving a compassionate appointment. It may be noted that even according to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner’s father having been subjected to disciplinary enquiry and reinstated into service, now they cannot make the misconduct of the father of the petitioner a ground for refusing compassionate appointment, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to the same under a statutory provision/Rule or some scheme which had statutory force. 5. However the petitioner has not been able to bring to the notice of this court any statutory Rule/Provision or any scheme having statutory force under which he is entitled for compassionate appointment and under which he can seek a direction from this Court to compel the State Bank of India Authorities to give compassionate appointment. In these circumstances it follows that this court cannot give any direction to the bank authorities, as it is purely within the discretion of the bank to give or not to give compassionate appointment. 6. Hence, it follows that this writ petition must fail and it is accordingly dismissed without costs. It shall however be open for the petitioner to make again a representation to the concerned authorities of the bank for compassionate appointment and on such a representation being made, the bank authorities may consider the same as per the Rules and its Policy. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. October 21, 2011. *BVS