Disposed

P. Jafar Khan, v. The Registrar, Sri Krishnadevaraya University

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Jul 2022WP/12956/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for compassionate appointment. Court held that factual controversy precludes writ jurisdiction but authority must consider the petitioner's representation with hearing before appointing a stranger.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders with opportunity of hearing for respondent No.2 within two months.

P. Jafar Khan, Vs The Registrar, Sri… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.12956 of 2014

¶3

JUDGMENT:-

¶4

Heard Sri S.V.S.S.Shiva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/the Registrar, S.K. University, Anantapuram District.

¶5

As per the office report dated 22.05.2014, proof of service on respondent No.2 is not filed. However, for the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice on respondent No.2 even if yet not served, is dispensed with.

¶6

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:-

¶7

“ It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 1^st respondent in not conducting any enquiry in pursuant to the representation Dt. 26.02.2014 against the appointment of the 2^nd respondent as an Attender at S.K. University, Anantapuramu though he is ineligible to appoint on compassionate grounds in the place of death of S.Rasool Bee who was the wife of petitioner is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to remove the 2^nd respondent from the service by taking into consideration of documents submitted by the petitioner and appoint the petitioner in the place of late S.Rasool Bee on compassionate grounds and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶8

The petitioner’s case is that late S.Rasool Bee was his wife, who died on 21.07.2012 while in service of respondent No.1/S.K.University. She was working as Sweeper-cum-Cleaner.

¶9

¶10

The petitioner applied for his appointment on compassionate ground, as he was the only dependent.

¶11

The respondent No.2/S.Shaikshavali, also applied for his compassionate appointment claiming to be the son of late S.Rasool Bee.

¶12

The respondent No.1 has given compassionate appointment to the respondent No.2 instead of the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 is not the son of late S.Rasool Bee and is a stranger to her family. In this respect, he submits that in the letter dated 05.12.2012 (Ex.P7) of respondent No.2 to the Gram Panchayat officer, it is mentioned that “his father S.Nabi Rasool died in the year 1984", whereas in the study and conduct certificate of respondent No.2, his date of birth is mentioned as 17.05.1988, and as such the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that ‘S.Nabi Rasool’, father of respondent No. 2 having died in the year 1984, the respondent No.2 would not be the son of late S.Rasool Bee from S.Nabi Rasool. Consequently, his submission is that the respondent No.1 has given appointment on compassionate ground to a stranger/respondent No.2 and has denied it to the petitioner.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in this respect, the petitioner has submitted a representation/application to the Registrar S.K. University on 26.02.2014, Ex.P1, requesting to make enquiry into the claim of the petitioner, but the same has yet not been considered.

¶15

¶16

Sri M. Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the

¶17

respondent/University submits that the claim of the petitioner has already been rejected and the appointment has been given to the respondent No.2. He further submits that there was also dispute with respect to the petitioner being the husband of the deceased S.Rasool Bee. However, he does not dispute that the petitioner has made a representation (Ex.P1) to respondent No.1.

¶18

The factual controversy as raised herein in view of the submissions advanced, cannot be gone into and determined in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which in such matters, is not the appropriate remedy. 11. However, in the matters of appointment on compassionate ground, the appointment is to be given to the dependent of the deceased and while considering the claim of more than one person, the authorities are expected to consider their respective claims in correct perspective. Compassionate appointment can certainly not be given to a stranger. This is not to say that in the present case it has been so given, but the petitioner having represented the authorities claiming that the petitioner is entitled and not the respondent No.2 who is a stranger, his representation required consideration. The alleged order of rejection of the petitioner’s claim has not been brought on record. 12. Since the petitioner has already submitted representation, to meet the ends of justice it is directed that the respondent No.1/Registrar, S.K.University, Anantapuram District, shall consider the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders thereon, with due opportunity of hearing, in consonance with the principles of natural justice, to the respondent No.2 as

¶19

¶20

well, within a period of two (02) months from the date of production of copy of this order before respondent No.1, in accordance with law.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of finally in the aforesaid terms.

¶22

No order as to costs.

¶23

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

¶24

shall also stand closed.

¶25

Date: 12.07.2022 SCS

¶26

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶28

196

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.12956 of 2014

¶30

Date: 12.07.2022

¶31

Scs

P. Jafar Khan, v. The Registrar, Sri Krishnadevaraya University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Jafar Khan, v. The Registrar, Sri Krishnadevaraya University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.L. Srinivas Rao, Vijayawada Vs Commr. and Dir. of Intermediate Education and 3 Ors.

K.Purnachandra Rao, Krishna District Vs Prl Secy, Revenue(Endowments) Dept, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Dr K.Suseela, Vs Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University

Smt S.Neeraja, Vs The a.P.Genco

Smt. Kapalayamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vinna Mahalakshmi, W/o. M.Ramakrishna Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh