Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

"(a) ..... to issue a writ or order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare that the action of the Respondent No. 1 in rejecting for providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner in proceedings vide Rc. No. 3688/E2/2019, dated 03.02.2020 is contrary to the G.O.Ms. No. 350 General Administration (Ser-A) Department, dated 30.07.1999 and Memo No. 116147/Ser-A/2003-1, General Administration Department, dated 08.10.2003 and also contrary to the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court reported in   2013 (4) ALT 501 (DB) and the same is illegal, arbitrary, irregular, biased and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequentially declare that the petitioner is eligible and qualified to appoint on compassionate grounds with all consequentially benefits from the date of application for compassionate appointment."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that her mother Kanaparthi Rani died on 02.04.2019 while working as M.P.H.A. (F) at Primary Health Centre, Sangamjagarlamudi, Guntur District, leaving three daughters. The petitioner is her 2nd daughter. The petitioner and her husband are dependent on the deceased Kanaparthi Rani. After taking "No Objection" from other two sisters, the petitioner made a representation along with relevant documents to the 1st respondent on 30.11.2019 seeking suitable employment on compassionate grounds. The 1st respondent, by citing the Govt. Memo No. 406/10/A1/Admn-II/2004, Finance (Admn-II) Department, dated 20.03.2004, rejected her representation vide proceedings Rc. No. 3688/E2/2019, dated 03.02.2020. It is further case of the petitioner that, in similar circumstances, O.A. No. 6938 of 2012 was filed before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and it was allowed on 04.12.2012. Against the said order, the respondents therein/Police Department preferred W.P. No. 16242 of 2013 and it was dismissed on 20.06.2013, which was reported in 2013 (4) ALT 501 (DB). Recently, in W.P. No. 41931 of 2017, dated 05.06.2018, this Court has set-aside the rejection orders passed basing on Govt. Memo No. 406/10/A1/Admn-II/2004, Finance (Admn-II) Department, dated 20.03.2004. Aggrieved by the impugned proceedings issued by the 1st respondent dated 03.02.2020, the petitioner herein filed this writ petition.

3. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents till today since 2020. It appears that the respondents did not choose to file counter-affidavit till today and failed to comply with the Rule 12 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, which reads as follows:-

"12.(i)(a) Every respondent in every writ petition intending to enter appearance and oppose any writ petition on which notice is issued by the High Court, shall enter appearance and file a counter-affidavit in opposition as soon as may be and in any event not later than six months from the date of service of notice in the writ petition or the Service of Rule Nisi on the said respondent "unless otherwise directed by the Court".

(b) Reply affidavits shall be filed unless otherwise ordered, within one month of receipt of copy of the counter-affidavit.

(ii) No counter-affidavit filed beyond six months from the date of service of notice on the opposite party or parties in the writ petition shall be received or be used at the hearing of the writ petition unless the Court permits the respondent on an application containing special reasons to do so.

(iii) Affidavits in opposition and affidavits in reply thereto shall be filed in the Registry along with authenticated copies of documents on which the party relies duly stitched book-wise and indexed after service on the opposite party or parties. No such affidavit shall be entertained after the time extended in sub-rule (ii) without the leave of the Court."

Following the decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in "J. Ramachandraiah Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others"  (2012) 4 ALD 366 : (2012) 4 ALT 281 this Court finds that the respondents violated the Rule 12 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977. Therefore, right to file counter-affidavit by the respondents is forfeited.

4. Heard Mr. T.S.N. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Perused the material papers on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per G.O.Ms. No. 350, General Administration (Ser. A) Department, dated 30.07.1999 married daughter can also be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds and in "Commissioner of Police v. K. Padmaja  2013 (4) ALT 501 (DB)", the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad clarified the similar situation while holding that the married daughter can also be appointed on compassionate grounds, subject to satisfying other requirements contained in G.O.Ms. No. 350, dated 30.07.1999.

6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents does not refute the said submission.

7. The petitioner is second daughter of deceased Kanaparthi Rani, who is married on the date of death of her mother. She sought appointment on compassionate grounds in any suitable post consequent upon the death of her mother. But the same was rejected by 1st respondent on the ground that she is married daughter.

8. While dealing with G.O.Ms. No. 350, General Administration (Ser. A) Department, dated 30.07.1999, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in the case of "Commissioner of Police v. K. Padmaja" (referred supra), held as follows:

"As evident from the scheme notified by the Government, the dependant children of a deceased Government servant who dies in harness are eligible for compassionate appointment to the Ministerial posts, such as Clerks, Typists, Steno-typists etc. When a doubt had arisen whether a married daughter can be considered to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment, it is clarified in the orders issued by the Government itself in G.O.Ms. No. 350, dated 30.07.1999 and further orders dated 08.10.2003 issued in memo No. 116417/Ser. A/2003-1, that married daughters are entitled for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds, subject to eligibility as per the scheme notified in this regard. A certificate issued by the Spl. Grade Deputy Collector, Ranga Reddy District is placed on record certifying the financial position of the applicant as unsound. Even in the report submitted by the Station House Officer, Ghatkesar, in clear terms it is stated that the applicant and her husband were living in the house of the deceased Sri K. Ramachandra Raju and were also taking care of widow of Sri K. Ramachandra Raju."

9. Following the above Judgment, this Court, by order dated 12.02.2021 in W.P. No. 929 of 2020, held as follows:-

"In view of the law declared by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in "Commissioner of Police v. K. Padmaja" (referred supra), and persuaded by the principle laid down by the High Court of Allahabad in "Manjul Srivastava v. State of U.P." (referred supra), I find that rejection of request of the petitioner for appointment of her daughter Peddinti Tushara on compassionate ground for the reason that she is the married daughter of deceased government servant, is illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 350 dated 30.07.1999. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No. 2 in Rc. No. A1/11025(40)/5/2018 dated 21.06.2018. Consequently, respondent No. 2 is directed to appoint Peddinti Tushara, daughter of the deceased Peravalli Bhaskara Charyulu and the petitioner herein, in any suitable post on compassionate grounds, within six (6) weeks from today, if she is eligible for such appointment subject to fulfilling the other conditions for such compassionate appointment. No costs."

10. In view of the above settled legal position, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings issued by the 1st respondent in Rc. No. 3688/E2/2019, dated 03.02.2020. Consequently, the 1st respondent is directed to appoint G. Priyanka, daughter of the deceased Kanaparthi Rani, in any suitable post on compassionate grounds, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

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