(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the Memo No. 184 GE dated 29.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.4 herein in rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds as illegal, arbitrary, colorable exercise of power and violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds in accordpnca with Memo No.116417/SER.A/2003-1,t 08.10.2003 and by Memo No. 140733/Ser.A/2003-1 dt 14.11.2003 by setting aside the Memo. No. 184 GE Dated 29.11.2025 and pass)

1. The writ petition is filed declaring the action of the 4th respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment vide impugned proceedings Memo No.184 GE, dated 29.11.2025 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds in accordance with Memos dated 08.10.2003 and 14.11.2003.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the younger daughter of Sri Sk.Baljilal, who died on 12.06.2025 at Alamuru, while he was working as Lascar in Irrigation Section, Alamuru of Water Resources Department of Godavari Eastern Division, Ramachandrapuram under the jurisdiction of the 4th respondent. The petitioner herein acquired qualification of B.Sc Computers from Aadikavi Nanayya University in the year 2019. It is further submitted that petitioner along with her elder sister and mother being the legal heirs submitted that there are no earning members in the family. Hence, the petitioner had made a representation dated 12.09.2025 along with all the relevant documents i.e., death summary certificate of her father, no property certificate, no earning member certificate, family members certificate, no objection affidavits of her elder sister and mother, qualification certificates etc., to the 4th respondent requesting the 4th respondent to provide compassionate appointment. It is further averred that the 4th respondent, without considering the said representation/application on proper perspective, has rejected the representation/application of the petitioner vide impugned memo dated 29.11.2025 stating that the petitioner is a married daughter and is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the memo No.406/10/A1/Admn.I/2004, dated 20.03.2004 issued by the Government, which is totally improper and contrary to the various orders passed by this Court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected vide memo dated 29.11.2025 on the ground that the memo dated 20.03.2004 issued by the Government would not apply to the petitioner. As per the memo dated 20.03.2004, it is stated that “once marriage is performed, a daughter is not dependent on her father/ mother even if she is un-employee or her husband is un-employee. A married daughter is dependent on her father/ mother if she is living with her father/ mother when her husband deserts her or disappears for years together or dies in all such cases, the husband should not have left any property/ income to his wife and the married daughter is solely dependent on the support provided by her father/ mother and is a un-employee”. In view of the same, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. He further stated that the dependent children of a deceased Government Servant who dies while in service are eligible for compassionate appointment to the eligible post. But in the present case, the petitioner is not the dependent of the deceased Government employee. Hence, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

5. In reply to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dependent children of the deceased Government servant who dies while in service are eligible for compassionate appointment for suitable post as per G.O.Ms.No.350, GA (SER-A) Dept dated 30.07.1999, Memo No.116147/Ser.A/2003-1, dated 08.10.2003 issued by the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (SER-A) Department dated 30.07.1999, compassionate appointments to the dependent of deceased government employees are subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions:-

                  “a. In para 2 (iii) of the G.O. it has been ordered that where the deceased employee does not have any male child but leaves behind him/her a married daughter and an unmarried minor daughter, the choice of selecting one of the them for appointment under the social security scheme shall be left to the spouse of the deceased.

                  b. In such cases Government hereby clarify when there is only a married daughter to the deceased Government employee without older or younger brothers or sisters and the spouse of the deceased Government employee is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment, such married daughter may be considered for compassionate appointment provided she is dependent on the deceased Government employee and subject to satisfying the other conditions and instructions issued on the scheme from time to time.”

6. On perusal of the impugned orders as well as G.O.Ms.No.350, GA (SER-A) Dept dated 30.07.1999, it clearly shows that the petitioner shall come under clause (a) of the conditions, as the elder sister is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment and the petitioner has submitted no objection certificate from the elder sister.

7. Apart from that, in identical cases this Court has considered the issue in W.P.No.10340 of 2014 dated 26.02.2021 and held that the word “Unmarried” is strike down in clause-III of eligibility criteria of “Bread Winner Scheme” of the respondent Corporation holding that it is discriminatory, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

8. In view of the above observations in the said judgment, the impugned memo dated 29.11.2025 issued by the 4th respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 4th respondent for fresh consideration. The 4th respondent is directed to consider the same afresh and pass appropriate orders taking the no objections certificate submitted by the elder sister and mother of the petitioner into consideration, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. It is needless to mention that while considering the representation/application of the petitioner, the respondents shall also take into consideration the certificates filed in writ petition.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.