C V Vasudeva Rao vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that regardless of the petitioner's eligibility for appointment on compassionate grounds, the 3rd respondent is obligated to pass orders in accordance with the applicable Rules. The Court explicitly stated that it would not touch upon the merits of the matter. The reasoning was based on the principle that administrative authorities must act in accordance with established rules and procedures. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage, with the consent of both parties, directing the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated November 28, 2017, and January 30, 2024, and pass appropriate orders strictly as per the Rules, expeditiously, preferably within ten weeks from the date of receipt of the order. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the court focused on directing consideration rather than deciding eligibility.

Facts

The petitioner, C.V. Vasudeva Rao, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider his representations for compassionate appointment. The petitioner's father, C.V. Sundar Rao, obtained voluntary retirement due to health reasons. Subsequently, the petitioner's brother, C.V. Subba Rao, who was employed on compassionate grounds following their father's death, also passed away on January 31, 2017, leaving the petitioner and his mother. The petitioner made representations on November 28, 2017, and January 30, 2024, seeking employment on compassionate grounds, which remained unconsidered, leading to the present writ petition. The petitioner confined his arguments to seeking a direction for the consideration of these representations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds, considering the provisions of the relevant Rules? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that his representations for compassionate appointment should be considered by the 3rd respondent. The specific grounds for eligibility were not detailed in the judgment, but the core of the argument was the need for consideration. Respondent's Argument: The respondent argued that the petitioner has crossed 46 years of age, making him ineligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the respondent also conceded that appropriate orders would be passed by the 3rd respondent on the petitioner's representations.