ORDER : 1. Heard Sri P. Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 and perused the record. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s father, who worked as Sanskrit Pandit Gr-II, in G.V.S. Oriental High School, SKR Nagar, Siddavatam Mandal, Kadapa District, died on 29.04.2000 in harness. The petitioner has submitted an application to the respondents on 28.04.2001 requesting them to provide compassionate appointment. The request of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.612 G.A.D. (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.10.1991 and G.O.Ms.No.30 Education (Ser.IV) Department, dated 01.02.1994 and Memo No.766/Ser.IV Education (Ser.IV) Department, dated 18.05.1995. Though the Government imposed ban on creation/filling up of existing vacancies of Aided posts in the recognized Aided Schools and also issued orders that the ban orders are applicable for the appointments on compassionate grounds in the Aided Schools, subsequently, the Government revived the scheme of compassionate appointment to the deceased employees working in recognized Aided institutions vide G.O.Ms.No.113, dated 06.10.2009. After revival of the scheme, the petitioner immediately made an another representation to the respondents on 22.03.2010 requesting them to provide compassionate appointment to him. The 1st respondent addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent on 03.04.2010 requesting to cause necessary verification into the records and furnish detail report over the eligibility of the petitioner for employment under compassionate grounds in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.113, Education (SE.PS1) Department, dated 06.10.2009. Till then no orders are passed by the respondents considering the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 filed counter-affidavit. The learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 submits that the petitioner is not eligible for providing compassionate appointment all the Government Orders/Memos relied by the petitioner are not applicable to the petitioner, as the petitioner was minor and he do not come under the purview of the said Government Orders. The learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 submits that the petitioner is not eligible for providing compassionate appointment all the Government Orders/Memos relied by the petitioner are not applicable to the petitioner, as the petitioner was minor and he do not come under the purview of the said Government Orders. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the Government revised the scheme of compassionate appointments to the dependents of the deceased Aided employees working in the Aided institutions in terms of G.O.Ms.No.30, Education (Ser.V) Department, dated 01.02.1994 by taking district as a Unit and providing them employment in ZP/MPP/Government Offices (not in Aided institutions). However, the Government have clarified that the orders issued in the Memo No.20360/SE.PS1/A1/2010, dated 09.06.2010 are with effect from the date of issue of Government Order (i.e.) with effect from 06.10.2009 (perspective) only. 5. Learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment since the provisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.113, Education (SE.PS1) Department, dated 06.10.2009 shall come into force with effect from 06.10.2009 only and as such, the case of the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration for providing employment on compassionate grounds. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that as the petitioner’s father expired on 29.04.2000, the petitioner is not eligible for appointment since the provisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.113, Education (SE.PS1) Department, dated 06.10.2009 will come into effect prospectively only with effect from 06.10.2009. 6. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.10, School Education (PS) Department, dated 25.01.2018, in which it was clearly stipulated that to make compassionate appointments to the dependents of the deceased employees, who worked in the recognized Aided Schools duly relaxation of the Government Memo No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-4, Education (COSE) Department, dated 20.10.2004 for the dependents of the deceased employees in interregnum period (i.e.) from 20.10.2004 to 05.10.2009 making them eligible for compassionate appointments. 7. It is the stand of the respondents that as per the provisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.10, School Education (PS) Department, dated 25.01.2018, it is made clear that the petitioner did not come under the purview of this Government Order. Learned Government Pleader also submits that as per the G.O.Ms.No.11, School Education (PS) Department, dated 02.02.2018, the dependents of the deceased Aided employee shall be provided compassionate appointment only in the Aided School, in which the deceased worked. Learned Government Pleader also submits that as per the G.O.Ms.No.11, School Education (PS) Department, dated 02.02.2018, the dependents of the deceased Aided employee shall be provided compassionate appointment only in the Aided School, in which the deceased worked. Finally, the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is not eligible for providing compassionate appointment from any angle and the Government Orders, which are in force relating to compassionate appointment does not apply to the case of the petitioner and sought dismissal of the writ petition. 8. This Court gave anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the counsel and carefully examined the material available on record. 9. This Court observed the following admitted facts: (i) The father of the petitioner died in harness on 29.04.2000 while working as Sanskrit Pandit Gr-II in 3rd respondent School. (ii) The petitioner submitted a representation on 28.04.2001 seeking compassionate appointment. (iii) Vide G.O.Ms.No.687, GA (Ser.A) Department, dated 03.10.1977, the State Government formulated a scheme on compassionate appointments to the dependents of the deceased Government employees. (iv) Vide G.O.Ms.No.612, GA (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.10.1991 further instructions were issued on the scheme of compassionate appointments to the dependents of the deceased Government employees. (v) Vide G.O.Ms.No.30, Education (Ser.V) Department, dated 01.02.1994 the scheme of compassionate appointments was extended to the employees working in Aided/ZPP/Municipal Management Schools. (vi) In the Government Memo No.766/Ser.IV-1/94-2, Edn.(Ser.IV) Deptt., dated 18.05.1995, it is clarified that the children of the deceased employees working in Aided Schools are eligible for compassionate appointments based on the qualifications in any Government Offices/Schools. (vii) Vide Government Memo No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-4, Education (COSE) Department, dated 20.10.2004, the Government imposed ban on creation/filling up of existing vacancies of Aided posts in the recognized Aided Schools. (viii) Vide Government Memo No.8544/PS.I/2005-3, Edn(SE.PS) Deptt., dated 14.11.2005 clarified that the ban orders are applicable for the appointments on compassionate grounds in the Aided Schools. (ix) In G.O.Ms.No.113, Education (SE.PS1) Department, dated 06.10.2009, the Government has revived the scheme of compassionate appointments to the dependents of the deceased Aided employees working in the Aided institutions in terms of G.O.Ms.No.30, Education (Ser.V) Department, dated 01.02.1994 by taking district as a Unit and providing them employment in ZP/MPP/Government Offices (not in Aided institutions). (x) In the Government Memo No.20360/SE.PS1/ A1/2010, dated 09.06.2010, the Government has clarified that the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.113, Education (SE.PS1) Department, dated 06.10.2009 are with effect from 06.10.2009 only. (x) In the Government Memo No.20360/SE.PS1/ A1/2010, dated 09.06.2010, the Government has clarified that the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.113, Education (SE.PS1) Department, dated 06.10.2009 are with effect from 06.10.2009 only. (xi) Vide G.O.Ms.No.40, School Education (PS) Deptt., dated 30.06.2017, the Government has withdrawn the ban on Memo No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-4, Education (COSE) Department, dated 20.10.2004 with immediate effect. (xii) The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.10, School Education (PS) Department, dated 25.01.2018, issued orders to make compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employees, who worked in the recognized Aided Schools, duly relaxation of the Government No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-4, Education (COSE) Department, dated 20.10.2004 for the dependents of the deceased employees in the interregnum period (i.e.) from 20.10.2004 to 05.10.2009 make them eligible for compassionate appointments. (xiii) Vide G.O.Ms.No.11, School Education (PS) Department, dated 02.02.2018, the Government ordered that the dependents of the deceased Aided employees shall be provided compassionate appointments only in the Aided Schools in which the deceased worked in supersession of the G.O.Ms.No.113, Education (SE.PS1) Department, dated 06.10.2009. 10. In the background of facts and on careful examination of the Government Orders stated above, the following issues have to be considered: (1) Whether the petitioner has fulfilled all the requisite eligibilities and qualifications stipulated under the relevant Government Orders which are applicable as on the date of death of the father of the petitioner to consider for appointment on compassionate grounds or not? (2) Whether this Court has to consider the Government Orders issued under the scheme of compassionate appointment which are applicable as on the date of the death of the deceased employee or has to consider subsequent Government Orders issued time to time? (3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment or not? Issue No.1: 11. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the father of the petitioner while working as Sanskrit Pandit Gr-II in 3rd respondent School, died on 29.04.2000 in harness. The date of birth of the petitioner is 01.06.1979. As such, the petitioner is a major. Therefore, the contention of the respondents at para No.5 of their counter-affidavit that the petitioner was minor is far from truth. The petitioner has submitted a representation on 28.04.2001 (i.e.) within one year from the date of death of his father. As such, it is established that the petitioner submitted application within the stipulated time. At that time, his educational qualification is pass in Intermediate. The petitioner has submitted a representation on 28.04.2001 (i.e.) within one year from the date of death of his father. As such, it is established that the petitioner submitted application within the stipulated time. At that time, his educational qualification is pass in Intermediate. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is dependent of his father. 12. Therefore, the Court is holding that the petitioner is eligible and qualified for appointment under the scheme of compassionate grounds in terms of G.O.Ms.No.687, GA (Ser.A) Department, dated 03.10.1977, G.O.Ms.No.612, GA (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, G.O.Ms.No.30, Education (Ser.V) Department, dated 01.02.1994 and Government Memo No.766/Ser.IV-1/94-2, Edn.(Ser.IV) Deptt., dated 18.05.1995. 13. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner. Issue No.2: 14. The Government vide Memo No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-4, Education (COSE) Department, dated 20.10.2004 imposed ban on creating/filling up of existing vacancies of Aided posts in the recognized Aided Schools and vide Memo No.8544/PS.I/2005-3, Edn(SE.PS) Deptt., dated 14.11.2005, clarified that the ban orders are applicable for the appointments on compassionate grounds in the Aided Schools. 15. Admittedly, the father of petitioner died in harness on 29.04.2000 and the petitioner made representation seeking compassionate appointment on 28.04.2001. As such, the Government Orders imposing ban on creation/filling up of existing vacancies of Aided posts in the recognized Aided Schools are much later to the date of death of the petitioner’s father. However, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.113, Education (SE.PS1) Department, dated 06.10.2009 revived the scheme of compassionate appointments to the dependents of the deceased Aided employees working in the Aided institutions in terms of G.O.Ms.No.30, Education (Ser.V) Department, dated 01.02.1994 by taking district as a Unit and providing them employment in ZP/MPP/Government Offices (not in Aided institutions). 16. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the Government clarified vide Memo No.20360/SE.PS1/ A1/ 2010, dated 09.06.2010 that the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.113, Education (SE.PS1) Department, dated 06.10.2009 are applicable with effect from the date of issue (i.e.) 06.10.2009 prospectively. Admittedly, the subsequent to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.113, Education (SE.PS1) Department, dated 06.10.2009, the petitioner has submitted another application on 22.03.2010 to the 1st respondent requesting to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of G.O.Ms.No.113, Education (SE.PS1) Department, dated 06.10.2009. Admittedly, the subsequent to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.113, Education (SE.PS1) Department, dated 06.10.2009, the petitioner has submitted another application on 22.03.2010 to the 1st respondent requesting to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of G.O.Ms.No.113, Education (SE.PS1) Department, dated 06.10.2009. In turn the 1st respondent vide Ref.A3/1233/2010, dated 03.04.2010 requested the 2nd respondent to cause necessary verification into the records and furnish detail report over the eligibility of the petitioner for employment under compassionate grounds in terms of G.O.Ms.No.113, Education (SE.PS1) Department, dated 06.10.2009. Till then the respondents slept over the matter. 17. Though the learned Government Pleader relied on several Government Orders and Government instructions issued time to time thereafter, but this Court is not inclined to consider all those Government Orders and instructions issued subsequently, in view of the fact that those are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. 18. It is settled law that the dependents of a deceased employee are entitled to apply for compassionate appointment and to seek consideration of the application in accordance with the terms and conditions of the scheme formulated by the Government. The opinion of this Court is fortified by the proposition of law declared in State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Seshi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653 at para No.21, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as hereunder: 21. While considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to bear in mind that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general Rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Dependants of a deceased employee of the State are made eligible by virtue of the Policy on compassionate appointment. The basis of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. It is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. Where the authority finds that the financial and other circumstances of the family are such that in the absence of immediate assistance, it would be reduced to being indigent, an application from a dependant member of the family could be considered. Where the authority finds that the financial and other circumstances of the family are such that in the absence of immediate assistance, it would be reduced to being indigent, an application from a dependant member of the family could be considered. The terms on which such applications would be considered are subject to the policy which is framed by the State and must fulfill the terms of the Policy. In that sense, it is a well-settled principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment. But, where there is a policy, a dependant member of the family of a deceased employee is entitled to apply for compassionate appointment and to seek consideration of the application in accordance with the terms and conditions which are prescribed by the State. 19. The Government of Andhra Pradesh formulated a scheme of compassionate appointments to the dependents of the deceased government employees in the year 1977 vide G.O.Ms.No.687, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 03.10.1977. Certain instructions/clarifications/further orders were issued from time to time in the matter. The object of compassionate appointment is a social security measure to support the family of the deceased government servant, who dies in harness. The aim and object of the policy for compassionate appointment is to provide financial support to the family of the deceased employee, who left the dependents in distress and penury. The core aim of the object of providing compassionate appointment is to relief the family from financial sufferings being faced for the sudden demise of the Bread Winner of the family. The sufferings being faced by the dependents of the deceased employee for sudden demise of the Bread Winner could be solved for some extent by providing compassionate appointment to the one of the dependents of the deceased employee to look after the family. 20. In the present case, the respondents failed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment without any justifiable or acceptable reasons and thereby the respondents acted against to the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment formulated by the State Government. Even today also, in their counter-affidavit, the respondents contended that as per the present Government Orders, which were issued after several years to the date of the death of father of the petitioner, they are saying that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Even today also, in their counter-affidavit, the respondents contended that as per the present Government Orders, which were issued after several years to the date of the death of father of the petitioner, they are saying that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Under these circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the respondents without applying their mind in proper perspective contending that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment with intention to one way or the other to defeat the claim of the petitioner. 21. Under these circumstances, this Court is holding that the Government Orders or Executive instructions issued under the scheme of compassionate appointments which are in existence and applicable as on the date of the death of the deceased employee died in harness have to be taken into consideration to consider the case of the dependent under the scheme of compassionate appointment. 22. In the present case, the claim of the petitioner has to be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.687, GA (Ser.A) Department, dated 03.10.1977, G.O.Ms.No.612, GA (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.10.1991 and G.O.Ms.No.30, Education (Ser.V) Department, dated 01.02.1994, Government Memo No.766/Ser.IV-1/94-2, Edn.(Ser.IV) Deptt., dated 18.05.1995 which are applicable as on the date of the death of the father of petitioner. The Government Orders issued subsequently have no relevance in the present case. 23. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioner. Issue No.3: 24. For the reasons stated and in view of the fact the issue Nos.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment in terms of the Government Orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.687, GA (Ser.A) Department, dated 03.10.1977, G.O.Ms.No.612, GA (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, G.O.Ms.No.30, Education (Ser.V) Department, dated 01.02.1994 and Government Memo No.766/Ser.IV-1/94-2, Edn.(Ser.IV) Deptt., dated 18.05.1995, which are applicable as on the date of death of the father of petitioner (i.e) on 29.04.2000. 25. Accordingly, issue No.3 is answered in favour of the petitioner. 26. The view of this Court had fortified from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Limited (2000) 6 SCC 493 , in which their Lordships held as hereunder: “In the case of appointment considering the social and economic justice as enshrined in the constitution, denials of deserving cases are liable to be set aside. Further, the purpose of providing compassionate ground to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigenous circumstances. Hence, in considering the case for compassionate appointment, the authorities are supposed to adopt a humane outlook.” 27. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the case in the Superintending Engineer vs. V. Jaya (2007) 6 MLJ 1011 , wherein their Lordships comprising a Division Bench of Madras High Court have held at para No.7 as extracted hereunder: 7. However, in a case of request for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot ignore the very purpose of providing employment on compassionate ground to the dependant of an employee/government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else as it is done so in order to mitigate the hardship to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. The concept of compassionate employment is intended to alleviate the distress of the family and it is for such purpose appointments are permissible and provided even in the rules and regulations and any rigid approach or too technical objections may defeat the very object of the scheme. It is for that purpose while considering the request for compassionate appointment; the authorities are expected to act as a Good Samaritan overlooking the cobwebs of technicalities. 28. For the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions: (i) The respondents shall consider and appoint the petitioner in any suitable post in terms of Government Orders applicable as on 29.04.2000 (i.e.,) the date of death of the father of petitioner; and (ii) The respondents shall pass orders within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 29. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.