ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “......to issue a Writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus by declaring the impugned action of the Respondents in issuing impugned Memo No CGM (Adm.IS&ERP)/DS(E)/DGM(E)/PO/C/22/2019 dated 09.02.2021 are the file of 2 Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, voilative of Article 14 of the constitution of India without notice or opportunity as voilative of principles of natural Justice consequently set a aside the same by directing the Respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionative grounds on the basis of the S.S.C. Certificate of the petitioner in the interest of Justice and pass.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that an application was made by the mother of the petitioner under guidance of the union representatives and the Respondent authorities have considered the same and approved the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and the petitioner was called for verification vide Memo. No. CGM (Adm.IS&ERP)/DS (Estt)/AS(Estt)PO-C/30-2019, dated 21-01-2020 issued by the 2nd Respondent. But after approval of the candidature of the petitioner, all of sudden without any prior notice to the petitioner, the 2nd Respondent issued impugned proceedings in Memo. No. CGM (Adm.IS & ERP)/DS(E)/DGM(E)/POC/22/2019, dated 09-02-2021, straight away cancelling Memo dated 19-02-2020 only on the ground that due to production of falsified documents showing the Date of Birth as 21.12.2001 instead of 21.12.2002 by the applicant.” Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying all the allegations made in the petition. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, contended that, the management APGENCO initially taken decision for providing a job as Junior Plant Attendant on compassionate appointment to the petitioner, subsequently cancelled the appointment orders, as the Petitioner was duping the management by producing the fake date of birth certificate. The Impugned Orders were issued to the Petitioner after duly following the procedure providing opportunity to the Petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner's father: Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Ex-PA submitted nomination papers for GPF wherein stated that he got married with Smt K. Swathi on 26.03.2002 and requesting appoint his newly wedded wife Smt. K. Swathi in place of his mother Smt. K. Raghavamma vide Lr. No. AEE/DSD/DKR/F3/215/2002, Dated 21.05.2002. It is stated that the petitioner's father: Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Ex-PA submitted nomination papers for GPF wherein stated that he got married with Smt K. Swathi on 26.03.2002 and requesting appoint his newly wedded wife Smt. K. Swathi in place of his mother Smt. K. Raghavamma vide Lr. No. AEE/DSD/DKR/F3/215/2002, Dated 21.05.2002. Further, late Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Ex PA had recorded the date of birth of his son, i.e. the petitioner herein, as 21.12.2001 at the time of joining to LKG class at DAV School, Mothugudem. Later, the petitioner's father Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Ex-PA was suddenly demised on 08.05.2018 and noticed that the normal rules in vogue doesn't satisfying for the candidature of their son i.e. the petitioner to get a job on compassionate grounds according to the date of birth as recorded in the school records i.e. as 21.12.2002, Smt. K. Venkata Lakshmi Swathi, M/o the petitioner i.e. Sri K Koushik in a bid to claim a job to their son: Sri K Koushik under compassionate appointments, had produced Form-5 document i.e. date of birth certificate, with Id No. 30503-B-59 issued by the Registrar, Births & Deaths, Velivennu village, West Godavari who is none other than Secretary, Gramapanchayat, Velivennu village as revealed to be issued on 02.08.2018, to the Head Master, DAV School, Mothugudem and accordingly, the date of birth of the petitioner: Sri K Koushik was corrected as 21.12.2001 instead of 21.12.2002 duly applying the white fluid. So, Explanation was called for from the Head Master, DAV School, Mothugudem as to why the correction has done to the date of birth of the petitioner vide Memo No. CE/O&M/ LS/ AS/JAO(A)/F/D No. 538/20, Dated 22.05.2020 and the Head Master, DAV School, Mothugudem had submitted his explanation admitting that the date of the year was corrected by the clerk with white fluid (whitener) vide Lr. No HM/DAV/MGM/D. No. 126/2020 Date. 28.05.2020. Further, Smt K.Venkata Lakshmi Swathi, M/o the petitioner herein adopted fraudulent method to manage the Village Secretary, Velivennu as a result of which the old village record was destroyed and the village electronic record get tempered and caused to enter the DOB of Sri K Koushik as 21.12.2001 in fact it is one year preponement of the actual date of birth to become eligible by virtue of age to get the job in APGENCO on compassionate grounds. Hence, the Form-5 document i.e. date of birth certificate, with Id No 30503-B-59 issued by the Registrar, Births & Deaths, Velivennu village, West Godavari is not genuine. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition as devoid of merits. 4. Heard Sri Peeta raman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M. Vidyas Sagar, learned Standing Counsel for APGENCO appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that, unless this Court is pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds by setting aside the impugned Memo, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss. Therefore, learned counsel request this Court to pass appropriate orders. 6. Whereas learned Standing Counsel for the respondents also reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavit. 7. Perused the material on record. 8. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the petitioner herein is the son of the deceased Government Employee. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment due to death of his father on any count as the petitioner was within and as per policy of the Government even a minor son or daughter who is not major but if would become major within 2 years would be entitled for compassionate appointment. 9. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the date of the year of the petitioner was corrected by the clerk with white fluid (whitener) vide Lr. No HM/ DAV/MGM/D. No. 126/2020 Date. 28.05.2020 and that the Form-5 document i.e. date of birth certificate, with Id No 30503-B-59 issued by the Registrar, Births & Deaths, Velivennu village, West Godavari is not genuine. 10. But as seen from the Date of Birth and SSC certificates of petitioner which are filed as material papers at page No. 15 and 16, it is evident that the petitioner’s Date of Birth is recorded as 21.12.2001. Moreover, as per contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the Date of the year of the petitioner Date of Birth was corrected by the clerk with white fluid etc. but, he has not produced any material papers before this Court to substantiate his contention. Moreover, as per contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the Date of the year of the petitioner Date of Birth was corrected by the clerk with white fluid etc. but, he has not produced any material papers before this Court to substantiate his contention. Moreover, on verifying the material papers filed by the petitioner, there are no such material alterations with regard to the correction of year in the Date of Birth Certificate. 11. 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. While the State Government and its instrumentalities implementing the scheme of compassionate appointments to help the destitute families of the deceased employees, but incorporating such clause in eligibility criteria is appears to be illegal and unjust. 12. On careful examination of the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment provided to the dependents of the Government employees, who die in harness, it has to be noted that with a noble object to help the families in distress of deceased employees, this scheme was introduced by the Government which is laudable. The respondents ought to have considered the situation of the family of the deceased employee in a sympathetic way and with human touch and not only being followed by the technicalities. 13. 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. 13. 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.” 14. In view of the foregoing reasons and in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court referred to above, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petition with the following directions: (i) The impugned Memo in CGM (Adm.IS &ERP)/DS(E)/DGM(E)/PO/C/22/2019 dated 09.02.2021 issued by the respondent No. 2 is hereby set aside. (ii) The respondents concerned are directed to consider the case of the petitioner as per the then extant policy. The authorities shall be entitled to scrutinize whether the application for compassionate appointment fulfils all other requirements in accordance with law. The process of consideration of the application shall be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.