ORDER : (K. Manmadha Rao, J.) : 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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings of respondent No 2 in case No P2/140011206 R M (G) dated 10.08.2021, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondent No 2 to appoint the petitioner as Shramik on compassionate grounds and pass…” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner by name Yenumula Sambasiva Rao worked as driver in the 1st respondent corporation bearing EO.NO.80283 in Guntur -1 Depot. While so, the father of the petitioner died on 02-01-2011 during the course of his employment. After his death, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents to appoint him as conductor/Shramik on compassionate appointment. The 2nd respondent, after considering the application of the petitioner, has issued a letter bearing No. P.2/140(01)/2016-R.M.G., dated 21-10-2016 directing the petitioner to appear before his office on 26-10-2016 at 10.00 A.M for the purpose of screening test along with the original documents i.e., 10th Class Certificate, Caste Certificate and death certificate of the employee. Accordingly, the petitioner along with all original documents appeared before the 2nd respondent for screening test. The authorities of 2nd respondent office, after perusing the documents raised an objection that the surname of the father of the petitioner in the death certificate, 10th Class certificate and community certificate are differed as in the death certificate, it was mentioned as ‘V’ and whereas in other certificates the surname was mentioned as Yenumula. So, consequently, the authorities of the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to rectify the same and submit the afresh. Thereafter, the petitioner on 09-10-2019 made a representation to the 2nd respondent that he secured the documents after making correction in the death certificate of the father of the petitioner surname as ‘Y’ instead of V and requested the 2nd respondent to consider his representation and to provide employment as conductor or Shramik in the 1st respondent corporation. But, the officers of the 2nd respondent have neither given any information nor sent any letter to appear for the medical tests on 10-04-2017 to the petitioner. But, the officers of the 2nd respondent have neither given any information nor sent any letter to appear for the medical tests on 10-04-2017 to the petitioner. In fact, there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner in appearing the medical test. As the petitioner had not received any information, he could not appear before the 2nd respondent for medical tests, if the petitioner received the information about the conducting of medical tests on 10-04-2017 he would have attended before the 2nd respondent. It is further stated that, as the 2nd respondent has not informed the petitioner to attend for the medical tests, the petitioner could not attend the medical test on 10-04-2017. Later, the petitioner came to know that the medical test was conducted on 10-04-2017 only after receipt of the letter from the 2nd respondent on 10-08-2021. After receipt of letter dated 10.08.2021 the petitioner got issued a notice through an advocate on 16.10.2021 informing all the facts about the case and requested to consider his candidature for employment. However, the 2nd respondent has not taken action so far. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No.1 and 2. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, the petitioner made a representation to the Regional Manager, Guntur to appoint him as Conductor/Shramik on compassionate grounds. After considering the petitioner’s representation, the selection committee has issued a letter bearing No. P2/140(01)2016-RMG, dated 21.10.2016 to the petitioner to appear before the Regional Office on 26.10.2016 along with the original documents of 10th class Certificate and Death Certificate of father of the petitioner for screening test. After perusing all records submitted by the petitioner the screening authorities of Regional Officer, Guntur raised an objection about surname of the father of the petitioner in the death certificate compared with the 10th class certificate of petitioner and community certificate. In the death certificate, the surname was mentioned as "V" and where as in other certificates the surname was mentioned as "Yenumula". The Selection Committee has given an opportunity to the petitioner to continue his name in the selection list so as to rectify the above objection raised by the selection committee and to submit fresh records within time to provide to him employment under compassionate grounds i.e. before completion of selection process. The Selection Committee has given an opportunity to the petitioner to continue his name in the selection list so as to rectify the above objection raised by the selection committee and to submit fresh records within time to provide to him employment under compassionate grounds i.e. before completion of selection process. It is further stated that the petitioner came to Regional Office, Guntur on 09.10.2019 i.e. after lapse of 3 years and made a representation to the authorities that he secured the documents after making correction in the death certificate of his father i.e., the surname was corrected as “Y” instead of “V” and requested to consider him to provide employment under compassionate grounds. It is further stated that the Petitioner did not contact with Regional Officer for his employment under compassionate grounds from 26.10.2016 to 08.10.2019. He intentionally did not contact and not provided any information to the Regional Officer, Guntur either in person or through correspondence. It is further stated that, as per procedure, the then selection committee conducted medical tests on 10.04.2017 to provide employment to the candidates to deceased employees and also intimated to the absentees that their names would be removed from the selection list. Accordingly, action was taken. It is further stated that there is no correspondence from the petitioner and therefore, there is no lapse on the pass of the Departmental Authorities and that the petitioner himself took 3 years of time for rectification. Therefore there is no justification for the delay caused on account of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned letter dated 10.08.2021 stands good and thus the petitioner herein has no legal right to seek compassionate appointment. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits. 4. Heard Sri Prabhunath Vasi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Solomon Raju, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that, the 2nd respondent vide letter No.P2/140(01)/2016-R.M.(G) informed to the petitioner that he was selected by Committee on 26.10.2016 for the post of Shramik and stated that after selection the medical tests were conducted on 10.04.2017 and as the petitioner has not attended for the same and not appeared before the 2nd respondent. So, the period given by the committee expired on 25.10.2017 and as such the name of the petitioner was removed from the final list. He further submits that after appearing for the screening test, the officers of the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner to change the surname in the death certificate of the father of the petitioner. The officers of the 2nd respondent Corporation has neither given any information nor sent any letter to appear for the medical tests on 10.04.2017 to the petitioner. In fact there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner in appearing the medical test. He further submits that as the petitioner had not received any information, the petitioner could not appear before the 2nd respondent for medical tests, if the petitioner received the information about the conducting of medical tests on 10.04.2017 he would have attended before the 2nd respondent. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to consider the candidature of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. 6. Per contra, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents also reiterated the contents made in the counter affidavit. He further submits that the petitioner came to Regional Office, Guntur on 09.10.2019 i.e. after lapse of 3 years and made a representation to the authorities that he secured the documents after making correction in the death certificate of his father i.e. the surname was corrected as “Y” instead of “V” and requested to consider him to provide employment under compassionate grounds. He further submits that there is no correspondence from the petitioner and therefore, there is no lapse on the part of the Departmental authorities. He mainly submits that the petitioner took 3 years of time for rectification. Therefore, there is no justification for the delay caused on account of the petitioner and thus the impugned letter dated 10.08.2021 stands good and that the petitioner has no legal right to seek compassionate appointment. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the material on record. 8. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the petitioner herein is the son of the deceased Government Employee. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 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 petitioner came to Regional Office, Guntur on 9.10.2019 i.e., after lapse of 3 years and made a representation to the authorities that he secured documents after making correction in the death certificate of his father i.e., the surname was corrected as “Y” instead of “V” and requested to consider him to provide employment under compassionate grounds. As per procedure the then selection committee conducted medical tests on 10.4.2017 to provide employment to the candidates to the deceased employees and also intimated to the absentees that their names would be removed from the selection list. However, there is no correspondence from the petitioner and therefore there is no justification for the delay caused on account of the petitioner. 10. As seen from the material on record, this Court observed that, it is true that the petitioner had corrected the surname as “Yenumula” instead of V. to that effect he filed affidavit which was duly notarized by the Advocate and the same was done on 23.02.2011 i.e., 1 ½ month after the death of his father and it is evident that the surname of the father of the petitioner was changed before the date of screening test. Moreover, it is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner came to the Regional Office, Guntur on 9.10.2019 after lapse of 3 years and made a representation that the petitioner secured documents after making correction in the Death certificate of his father. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that, in the present case, the dispute is with regard to appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The object of scheme of compassionate appointment is to provide employment to the dependants of the Government employee harness. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that, in the present case, the dispute is with regard to appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The object of scheme of compassionate appointment is to provide employment to the dependants of the Government employee harness. So, the main object is to provide employment to the dependants the deceased employee. On perusing the Family Member certificate who die in of the petitioner is the son of the deceased employee and that immediately after death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents to appoint him as conductor/Shramik on appointment. 12. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that upon considering the application of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has issued a letter dated 21.10.2016 directing the petitioner to appear before him. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared with all original documents for screening test. On verification, the 2nd respondent office objected that the surname of the father of the petitioner in death certificate and 10‘^ class certificate and community certificate are differed as in the death certificate it was mentioned as V and whereas in other certificates the surname was mentioned as Yenumula. It is further observed that, on 9.10.2019, after correcting the surname, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent stating that he secured the documents after making correction in the death certificate, But the 2nd respondent, without giving any response, has issued the impugned letter dated 10.08.2021 stating that "After selection you are not attend the subsequent medical test conducted on 10.04.2017 to attend the same for the medical test or subsequently you have not consulted with the Regional Office of the Corporation. The period of the panel issued by the Committee was lapse by 25.10.2017 so your name was removed from the selection list." 13. 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 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. 14. 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. 15. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the case in the Superintending Engineer vs. V. Jaya, (2007) 6 MLI 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.” 16. 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.” 16. 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 &mERP)/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 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. 17. 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.