TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenge in this appeal is to the order dated 23.8.2005 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.356 of 2005. This appeal is preferred by the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Education Institutions. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:- The father of the respondent late Sri P. Andhru was employed in the Government of Andhra Pradesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the impugned order was issued. Hence the present appeal by special leave. The undisputed facts are: Late Sri P. Andhru was survived by wife Smt. P. Santhoshamma and two sons namely Sri P. Sridhar (respondent herein) and Sri P. Srikanth. At the time when the respondent made an application for appointment on compassionate ground, the mother of the respondent (Smt. P. Santhoshamma) was emp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was appointed as a typist on compassionate ground on 22.11.2002. The respondent vide his application-dated 6.5.1996, applied for appointment on compassionate ground as dependent of late Sri P. Andhru. The respondent attached non-employment certificate with his application for appointment on compassionate ground. The certificate reads:- This is to certify that Shri/Smt./Kum. P. Sreedhar so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nciple of law that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in a straight jacket formula. Its application depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To sustain the complaint of the violation of principles of natural justice one must establish that he was prejudiced for non-observance of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, the fact on which the appellant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principles of natural justice is, therefore, clearly erroneous. In our view, in the given facts of this case, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the respondent. The respondent could not have improved his case even if a show cause notice was issued to him. In the result, the order of the Division bench of the High Court dated 23.8.2005, is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
