Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Smt. T. Appala Narasamma, vs The District Collector, on 6 January, 2021

Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                   WRIT PETITION No.204 OF 2021

ORDER:-


      This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India seeking the following relief:

           "......pleased    to   issue   "writ   of   Mandamus"        declaring
     proceedings   Rc.No.1389/2019     A3,    Dt:18.03.2020    of    the   1st
     respondent in rejecting application for appointment of 2nd

petitioner on compassionate grounds is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to law and violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant or any suitable post on compassionate grounds and pass........"

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

3. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of late Teki Gandhi, who worked as

Office Subordinate in Tahsildar Office, Palakonda. While he was in

service as Office Subordinate, died on 09.02.2016 leaving the

petitioners. Petitioner No.2 - P.Santhosh Kumar is the adopted son.

Consequent upon the death of the husband of petitioner No.1 - Teki

Gandhi, she submitted an application to respondent No.1 on

17.6.2016 to consider the case of petitioner No.2 for appointment to

any suitable post on compassionate grounds but he did not take any

action. She made another representation to respondent No.2 on

15.6.2019 and the same was forwarded by respondent No.2 to

respondent No.1 for taking further action but respondent No.1 did

not take any steps and neither considered the application nor passed

any order for appointment of petitioner No.2 nor rejected the said

representation. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.15221 of 2019

before this Court. This Court, by order, dated 30.09.2019, disposed

of the said writ petition directing respondent No.1 to consider the

representation of petitioner No.1 dated 3.6.2019, which was

forwarded by respondent No.2, and pass appropriate orders within a

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

In pursuance of the said direction, respondent No.1, without looking

into the documents and without considering the material on record,

erroneously rejected the application for appointment on

compassionate grounds vide his proceedings, dated 18.3.2020. The

same is now challenged before this Court as prima facie, it is

erroneous and contrary to the report submitted by the Revenue

Divisional Officer dated 03.02.2020 and requested to issue the

direction as claimed.

4. During hearing, Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioners, has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned

proceedings and submitted that the reason for rejection for

considering the application of petitioner No.2 was that there is

disparity in the age of the adoptive mother and the son and not on

any other ground and he also drawn the attention of this Court to

third para of page No.2 of the report dated 03.02.2020. On the

strength of the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, learned

counsel for the petitioners requested to issue a suitable direction to

respondent No.1 for appointing petitioner No.2 to a suitable post.

5. Mrs.G.Sumathi, learned Government Pleader for Services-II,

raised a different contention that the surname of petitioner No.2 is

still "Pillala" i.e., surname of the biological parents and still the

surname of petitioner No.2 is not changed by adopting the surname

of the adoptive parents i.e., "Teki" and as such, petitioner No.1 is

disentitled to claim appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate

grounds and requested to dismiss the petition.

6. Undoubtedly, petitioner No.2 was adopted by deceased Teki

Gandhi and petitioner No.1 but still the surname is continuing as

"Pillala" i.e., the surname of biological parents, according to the

learned Government Pleader for Services-II, but on that ground, the

claim of petitioner No.2 cannot be rejected. However, learned

Government Pleader for Services-II wanted to make improvement in

this case assigning a different reason for rejection, which is

impermissible in law, in view of the judgment reported in M.S.Gill

vs. Chief Election Commissioner1. Therefore, on the ground

invented by the learned Government Pleader for Services-II, rejection

of appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds is not

justified.

7. The only reason assigned in the impugned proceedings for

rejecting the candidature of petitioner No.2 for being appointed to

any post on compassionate grounds is as follows:

"4. As per Para No.11(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 "If the adoption is by a female and the person to be adopted is male, the adoptive mother is at least twenty one (21) years older than the person to be adopted". Whereas in this case, the details of your age and Sri Pillala Santosh Kumari (Said to be adopted) are as follows:


          Sl.   Date     of   Date      of   Age of the    Date    of   Age of the   Differen
          No    adoption      Birth of the   mother at     Birth   of   adopted      ce
                              mother as      the time      adopted      son at the   between
                              per aadhar     of            son          time    of   the age
                                             adoption                   adoption     of    the
                                                                                     mother
                                                                                     and
                                                                                     adopted
                                                                                     son
          1     13.12.2000    10.03.1978     22 years      05.06.19     9 years      13 years






    (1978) 1 SCC 405

Hence, the age gap between the adoptive mother and adopted son is 13 years only, but not 21 years as per the Act, 1956.

5. As seen from the enquiry report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Inspector submitted to the Tahsildar, Palakonda, there are certain corrections about the age of the adopted mother and adopted son, so that, it is beyond reasonable doubt that there is a malafide intention behind it, in this matter. The certificates of No earning Family Member and Family Member issued by the Tahsildar, Palakonda as per corrections about your age and Sri Pillala Santosh Kumar (Said to be adopted son).

6. Moreover, the original father of Pillala Rambabu said to adopted son, has been working as office subordinate in the Tahsildar's office, Palakonda."

But as seen from the report, dated 03.02.2020, submitted by the

R.D.O., the reason is unfounded and specific observation in the

report is extracted herein for better appreciation:

"I submit that one Sri Teki Gandhi, Office Subordinate, O/o.the Tahsildar, Palakonda expired on 09.12.2016 while in service. The deceased employee had no children. While he was alive, he adopted one male person by name Pillala Santosh Kumar, S/o.Rambabu on 13.12.2000. They written a adopted Deed on a N.J.Stamp per work of Rs.5/-, but it was not registered. The Date of Birth of adopted son is 05.06.1991 (09 years of age) as on the date of his adoption and also inform that his SUR NAME (or) his adopted father name was not incorporated in his school and Degree Records. But the individual is under the guardian ship of the adopted parent from the date of adoption till to demise of his adopted father."

In view of the observation recorded in the report, the reason

assigned in the impugned proceedings regarding age is illegal and

contrary to the report. Therefore, the reason assigned in the

impugned proceedings for rejection of the application of petitioner

No.2 for appointment to any suitable post is contrary to the report

and such rejection is illegal and arbitrary and the same is liable to be

set aside. Hence, the impugned Endorsement, dated 18.3.2020, is

hereby set aside while directing respondent No.1 to reconsider the

application of petitioner No.1 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.612, General

Administration (Ser.) Department, dated 30.10.1991, and issue

appropriate proceedings within one month from today.

8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the