Karnataka High Court
Bhagylakshmi D/O Gulayya ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 May, 2022
Bench: Krishna S Dixit, P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
WP No. 100533 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF MAY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
WRIT PETITION NO. 100533 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
BHAGYLAKSHMI W/O RACHAYYA SHANKEAN
D/O. GULAYYA HIREMATH, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC.
R/O. C/O. SHIVALILA HIREMATH, H.NO.213, NEAR
BASAVESHWAR TEMPLE,
AT AND POST. BEVUR
TQ AND DIST. BAGALKOT
PIN CODE. 587115
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANAND R KOLLI & SRI. D.V.PATTAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(PRIMARY AND SECONDARY)
M.S.BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001
-2-
WP No. 100533 of 2022
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTURCTION
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
BAGALKOT-587101
4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
BAGALKOT-587101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GA, FOR RESONDENTS)
THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 11.10.2018 PASSED BY THE
HON BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.7322/2018 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Writ petition calls in question an order
dated 11.10.2018 rendered by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, at Bangalore, whereby
petitioner's case in Application No.7322/2018
challenging the denial of Compassionate Appointment
on the ground of her marriage, has been rejected.
WP No. 100533 of 2022
2. After service of notice, the respondents having
entered appearance through the learned AGA
vehemently resist the writ petition making
submission in justification of the impugned order and
the reasons on which it has been structured. In
support of his case he places reliance on the decision
of the Apex Court in THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES
IN KARNATAKA VS. V.SOMYASHREE (2021) SCC
Online SC 704.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the petition papers, we are inclined
to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for
the following reasons:
(a) The essential grievance of the petitioner is
against the denial of compassionate
appointment to her on the ground of she is a
married daughter of the employee who died in
harness. A learned Single Judge of this Court in
BHUVANESHWARI VS. PURANIK AND STATE OF
WP No. 100533 of 2022
KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS ILR 2021 KAR 5256
has faltered a similar stand of the Government
principally on the ground of gender equality.
(b) This view in BHUVANESHWARI, supra has been
affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP No.
20166/2021 between STATE OF KARNATAKA vs.
C.N APOORVA SHREE decided on 17.12.2021.
This short order reads as under:
"We have heard learned
counsel for the petitioners and have
analyzed the impugned judgment.
We give our full imprimatur to the
reasoning of the High Court, more
so, as even the rule in question
relied upon by the petitioner to deny
a married daughter a job on
compassionate grounds while
permitting it to a married son, has
been quashed in the judgment of the
Karnataka High Court in
Bhuvaneshwari V. Purani v. State of
Karnataka (2021) 1 AKR 444 [AIR
Online 2020 Kar 2303]. The Special
Leave Petition is dismissed. "
(c) Lastly, the reliance of the learned AGA on THE
DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES IN KARNATAKA VS.
WP No. 100533 of 2022
V.SOMYASHREE (2021) SCC Online SC 704 does not
come to the rescue of the respondents inasmuch as
the facts of this case are a bit different from the ones
in C.N APOORVA SHREE, supra. It has been a settled
position of law, that a decision is an authority for the
proposition that is actually laid down in a given fact
matrix and not for all that which logically follows
from what has been so laid down in QUINN vs.
LEATHEM 1901 A.C. 495. Therefore, the said ruling
does not come to the aid of the respondents
In the above circumstances, this writ petition
succeeds; the impugned order is set at naught; the
petitioner's application No.7322/2018 having been
favoured, the endorsement dated 07.09.2018 at
Annexure-A6 is also set aside. The respondent Nos.1 and
2 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for
compensate appointment in the light of the decision of the
learned Single Judge in BHUVANESHWARI, supra in
WP No. 100533 of 2022
accordance with the pre-amendment regime. All
contentions are kept open.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SVH
