Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 162 (AP)

B. Nagamma v. A. P. S. R. T. C.

2000-03-06

S.R.NAYAK

body2000
S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the widow of late sri B. Anjaiah. The said B. Anjaiah died in harness on 13-6-1996 while serving as sweeper. Immediately after the death of the said B. Anjaiah, the petitioner submitted an application to the third respondent requesting the latter to appoint her to the post of Sweeper or Cleaner under the scheme providing appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner s application was forwarded to the second respondent by the third respondent. The third respondent by the impugned order dated 12-8-1998 rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that illiterate persons are not eligible for the post of sweeper. Hence this writ petition assailing the validity of the order issued by the third respondent dated 12-8-1998. ( 2 ) THE only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of argument is the hardship of the petitioner. It is well settled by the pronouncements of the Supreme Court and this Court that the court while considering the request of dependent of the deceased employee for appointment on compassionate ground should not issue any direction to the authorities to appoint the dependents in contravention of the policy laid down by the authorities regarding compassionate appointment. If the petitioner being an illiterate is not entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Sweeper on compassionate ground and in terms of the relevant regulations framed by the corporation, the Court cannot issue a direction to the Management of APSRTC to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Sweeper on compassionate ground in breach of the scheme or the regulation. However, an attempt was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that certain illiterate dependents have been appointed by the management of the APSRTC and in that view of the matter, the impugned action of the third respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner tantamounts to an invidious discrimination and violative of article 14 of the Constitution. I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not pleaded before this Court in the affidavit that similarly situated illiterate dependents were given appointment by the Management of apsrtc on compassionate ground. Therefore, the factual contention raised before this Court is not supported by the pleading. I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not pleaded before this Court in the affidavit that similarly situated illiterate dependents were given appointment by the Management of apsrtc on compassionate ground. Therefore, the factual contention raised before this Court is not supported by the pleading. In other words, this contention need not be considered. ( 3 ) BE that as it may, even assuming that the Management of APSRTC has offered employment to certain illiterate dependents of the deceased employees, in certain cases, that fact itself would not be a justification for this Court to issue Mandamus to the management of APSRTC to offer appointment to the petitioner in breach of the scheme and the regulations. It is well settled by the judgments of the Supreme court in Gurusharan Singh vs. New Delhi municipal Committee, Chandigarh administration vs. Jagjit Singh and several other decisions that if an authority makes an order in violation of a rule and confers a right on an in-eligible person, that would not justify a claim by another ineligible person, and the Courts cannot issue Writ of mandamus to the authorities to do some thing in breach of the law. ( 4 ) NO other points are urged before the court to assail the validity of the impugned order. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.