Karnataka High Court
B.Rakesh S/O. Guruanath vs The Chief Officer on 30 October, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14714
WP No. 101757 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 101757 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
B. RAKESH S/O. GURUNATH,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: 620/2, 5TH CROSS,
K.B. EXTN., DAVANAGERE,
DIST: DAVANAGERE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE CHIEF OFFICER,
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: BALLARI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. C. SHARANABASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLEs 226 AND
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO ISSUE A
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 25.09.2020 BEARING NO.
(PÀ.¸ÀA:SUM.PUSA.HaHalli:Sibbandi:CR-25:2020-21/128 VIDE
ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14714
WP No. 101757 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner is before this court seeking the following prayer:
1. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned endorsement dated 25.09.2020 bearing No. (PÀ.¸ÀA:Sum.PuSa.HaHalli:Sibbandi:CR-
25:2020-21/128 vide Annexure-F.
2. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/direction to respondent No.1 to 3 to consider the representation date 17.03.2020 vide Annexure-D of the petitioner in view of the endorsement dated 10.01.2017 vide Annexure-D issued by respondent No.3.
3. Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit under the circumstances of the case.
2. The petitioner is said to be the adopted child of one Gurunath, an employee who was working as a loader in respondent Town Municipal Council, Harapanahalli. He dies in harness on 12.11.2019. Before the death of the said employee, registered Adoption deed is said to have been executed adopting the petitioner as his son. The petitioner, after the death of the father, submits an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The same comes to be rejected on the score that there are no documents produced by the petitioner -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14714 WP No. 101757 of 2021 HC-KAR with regard to the adoption prior to the date of the death of the employee. Even otherwise the endorsement is that he is not eligible under the relevant rules.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterated the ground set out in the petition to contend that the adoption takes place long before the death and all the documents were submitted to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner. The same has not merited any consideration. The learned counsel would seek to place reliance upon the decision of Division Bench of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.100362/2022.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently refute the submissions contending that the documents of adoption that was handed over to the respondent was containing the name of the biological father and not the name of Gurunath, who was the employee who died in harness.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would now join the issue in contending that all the necessary documents would be handed over to the respondent and the case of the petitioner be -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14714 WP No. 101757 of 2021 HC-KAR considered in terms of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.100362 of 2022.
5. The judgment in Writ Appeal No.100362/2022 reads as follows:
1. Sri.Praveen Uppar, learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. The appellant is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
"1) Call for the records and set-aside the impugned order dated 24.06.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.107136/2018 (S-RES) passed by learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court.
2) Strike down Rule 3(3) of Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 Notification No.DPAR 100 SCA 95 dated 12/09/1996 issued by respondent No.1.
3) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate with or direction directing the respondent No.1 to 3 to issue appointment order on compassionate ground.
4) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the endorsement dated 07/08/2018 issued by respondent No.2 ( Annexure-F of the writ petition) and quash the endorsement dated 16/08/2018 issued by respondent No.4 ( Annexure-G of the writ petition).
5) Grant of such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances or the case, in the interest of justice and equity."-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14714 WP No. 101757 of 2021 HC-KAR
3. Writ Petition in W.P.No.107136/2018 had been filed seeking for the following reliefs:
"To strike down sub Rule (3) of Rule 3 of Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 Notification to DPAR 100 SCA 95 dated 12.09.1996 issued by the respondent No.1 as per Annexure-H."
4. It is the case of the appellant that the petitioner is the adopted son of one Vinayak M Muttatti, who was working as Class-IV employee (dalayat) in the office of Assistant Public Prosecutor, JMFC, Banahatti. The appellant being adopted on 08.12.2011 by way of an adoption deed, the adoption was made on account of natural born son of the said Vinayak M Muttatti having expired in a road traffic accident on 08.11.2010.
5. The adoptive father Vinayak M Muttatti expired on 27.03.2018, the appellant had submitted a representation on 07.06.2018 seeking for compassionate appointment. The said representation was rejected by respondent No.2 vide endorsement dated 07.08.2018 and by respondent No.4 on 16.08.2018 on the ground that the appellant was a adopted son and the Rules do not provide for consideration of adopted son for compassionate appointment. It is in that background that the Writ Petition was filed.
6. The learned Single Judge by way of his order dated 24.06.2021 dismissed the said challenge on the ground that the Rules do not provide for an adopted son to be considered for compassionate appointment. It is in that background that the appellant is before this Court challenging the order of the learned Single Judge.
7. Another Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.211068/2020 has considered all the issues and by judgement dated 23.02.2022 by taking into consideration the amendment to the Rules made on 09.04.2021, has come to the conclusion that there -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14714 WP No. 101757 of 2021 HC-KAR cannot be a distinction made between a natural born son and an adopted son.
8. That decision Sri.Shravan Madhav, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that the amendment made on 09.04.2021 was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge when the order dated 24.06.2021 was passed. But however, he presses the said amendment into service by relying upon the judgement of another learned Single Judge in W.P.No.211068/2020 and submits that the Writ Appeal ought to be allowed.
9. Sri.Praveen Uppar, learned HCGP who has entered appearance for the respondents submits that consideration of the application is required to be made on the basis of the applicable Rules as on the date of the application and the subsequent amendment would not have any impact and the benefit given by way of amendment cannot be extended to the petitioner. On these grounds he submits that the judgement of the learned Single Judge is proper and correct and does not require any interference from our end.
10. Heard Sri.Shravan Madhav, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Praveen Uppar, learned HCGP for the respondents, perused papers.
11. In the present matter, the short question which is raised apart from the amendment made to the Rules on 09.04.2021 is as regards whether an adopted son would have to be treated equally to that of a natural son while considering an application for compassionate appointment.
12. The aspect of ground of compassionate appointment arises only on account of any financial difficulty and or stringency faced by the family on account of the death of the earning family member who was employed in the Government service. It is in that background that an effort is made to provide compassionate appointment to one of the family members so as to enable that family member to take -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14714 WP No. 101757 of 2021 HC-KAR care of the entire family. This being the object and intention of compassionate appointment, it is in that background that an application made would have to be considered.
13. Admittedly, the deceased left behind his wife and son and adopted son and a daughter who is mentally retarded and physically handicapped. It is in the background of those facts that the appointing authority would have to consider the application of compassionate appointment if indeed there is financial stringency or difficulty requiring compassionate appointment.
14. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 in the present matter have sought to make a distinction between an adopted son and a natural son so as to deprive the adopted son of compassionate appointment. In the present case, the daughter being a natural daughter, would have been entitled to a compassionate appointment if not for her being mentally retarded as also physically handicapped. In such a situation, it is the adopted son who was so adopted by the deceased to take care of the family on account of the death of a natural-born son who has applied for a compassionate appointment.
15. In the above circumstances, we are therefore of the considered opinion that the application made by the adopted son for compassionate appointment is bonafide and is required to be considered in the background of the difficulties faced by the family. The distinction made between the adopted son and a natural son by respondent Nos.2 and 4 either on the basis of the existing Rules in our considered opinion would not have any impact or role to play in the matter, a son is a son or a daughter is a daughter, adopted or otherwise, if such a distinction is accepted then there would be no purpose served by adoption. Be that as it may, apparently taking into account that the same would violate Article 14 of the constitution, the said Rules have been amended so as to do away the artificial distinction.
-8-NC: 2025:KHC-D:14714 WP No. 101757 of 2021 HC-KAR
16. Therefore, the contention of Sri.Praveen Uppar, learned HCGP that the application has to be considered on the basis of the Rules applicable on the date on which the application was made is liable to be rejected since the artificial distinction between adopted son and a natural son was the basis for a such endorsement being issued.
17. In the above circumstances, we pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The order dated 24.06.2021 passed by the
learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.107136/2018 is set aside.
iii. The endorsement dated 07.08.2018 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-F to the writ petition and endorsement dated 16.08.2018 issued by respondent No.4 at Annexure-G to the writ petition are quashed and a mandamus is issued directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 07.06.2018 for compassionate appointment as if the petitioner is a natural born son without making distinction between an adopted son and a natural son, which shall be so considered within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
iv. Respondent No.2 shall act on a print out of the uploaded copy of this order, without insisting on a certified copy. In the event of Respondent No.2 having any doubt about the order, Respondent No.2 can cross-check the same by scanning the QR code on this judgement, which would lead the person to the judgement webhosted on the website of the High Court.
-9-NC: 2025:KHC-D:14714 WP No. 101757 of 2021 HC-KAR v. Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to furnish a print out copy of this order to respondent No.2.
6. In the light of the said submission and contra-
submission, I deemed it appropriate to dispose the petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.100362 of 2022.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following order:
ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed. The impugned endorsement dated 25.09.2020 bearing No.Sum.PuSa.HaHalli: Sibbandi:CR-25:2020- 21/128 vide Annexure-F stands quashed. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in consonance with law and bearing in mind the observations made by the division bench in Writ Appeal No.100362 of 2022.
ii. In the event, the respondents would need any documents, they are free to solicit the same from the hands of the petitioner and the petitioner shall furnish all the documents that
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14714 WP No. 101757 of 2021 HC-KAR are sought for. If the respondents are satisfied with the documents that would be placed before them by the petitioner, the application of the petitioner shall be processed strictly in consonance with law and appropriate orders be passed.
iii. The said exercise shall conclude within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, if not earlier.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Kmv CT-GTB