Shri.Chetan S/O Siddarayappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 451 Kant

                                                           -1-




                                                                   WP No. 102878 of 2021


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                     DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                                                       PRESENT
                                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
                                                          AND
                                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 102878 OF 2021 (S-KAT)
                              BETWEEN:

                                   SHRI.CHETAN S/O SIDDARAYAPPA GANIGI
                                   AGED 31 YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYED,
                                   R/O H.NO.21, HANUMANNAVAR GALLI, ANAGOL,
                                   BELAGAVI, DIST BELAGAVI-590002.

                                                                              ...PETITIONER

                              (BY SRI. H M DHARIGOND.,ADVOCATE)

                              AND:

                              1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                                   REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                                   EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY,
                                   M.S.S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

                              2.   THE ADDITIONAL COMMISIONER OF
                                   PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
                                   RODDA ROAD, DIET CAMPU,
                                   DHARWAD-580008.
           Digitally signed
           by
           MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
B SHELAR
           Date:
           2023.01.13
           10:57:37 +0530




                              3.   THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
                                   PUBLIC INSTRUCTION ADMN.,
                                   BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI-590001.

                                                                           ...RESPONDENTS

                              (BY SRI.G.K.HIREGOUDAR, G.A. FOR R1 TO R3)
                                  -2-




                                           WP No. 102878 of 2021


      THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) A WRIT IN THE NATURE
OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
6.10.2020 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.10462/2019 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BELAGAVI VIDE
ANNEXURE-C AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A. B) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTS THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN TO APPOINT THE
PETITIONER ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS IN THE RESPONDENTS
DEPARTMENT.

     THIS  WP    COMING    ON  FOR   ORDERS             THIS    DAY,
K.SOMASHEKAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

Heard the learned counsel Sri.H.M.Dharigond for the

petitioner and so also the learned Government Advocate

Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking writ in

the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated

06.10.2020 in Application No.10462/2019 passed by the

Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi vide Annexure-C

and also the application filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-A.

The petitioner is also seeking the relief in the nature of

mandamus directing the respondents herein to appoint the

petitioner on compassionate ground in the respondents

department i.e., Education Department.

WP No. 102878 of 2021

3. In this writ petition, learned counsel for the

petitioner has taken us through the contentions of the

petitioner in this writ petition. The father of the petitioner

namely late Siddarayappa was working as First Division

Assistant at High School, Nesargi in Bailhongal Taluk, Belagavi

District. The father of the petitioner died while he was in

service on 21.01.1997. After his death, the mother of the

petitioner was granted family pension and such other benefits

under the relevant provision, rules and also guidelines. But on

12.10.1998 the mother of the petitioner submitted a

representation to respondent No.3, i.e., Deputy Director of

Public Instructions (Admn.) Belagavi District seeking

compassionate appointment to the petitioner, namely

Sri.Chetan Ganigi after he attaining the age of majority. At the

time of filing of the representation by the mother, the petitioner

was studying in 8th standard. He further contended that date of

birth of the petitioner is 20.08.1985 and he attained the age of

majority on 20.08.2003. On 23.05.2004, he passed PUC and

during the year 2011, he has completed his Bachelor of Arts

degree from Karnataka University. These are all the contentions

WP No. 102878 of 2021

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for consideration

of the grounds urged in this writ petition for intervention.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his

contention produced documents vide Annexure-A, A1 to A20.

These are all the true copies of the application dated

27.8.2019. He has also produced judgments for the purpose of

perusal and also for consideration. Annexure-B reveals true

copy of the memo dated 11.08.2020 which is also produced for

the purpose of consideration along with the grounds urged in

this writ petition. Similarly, true copy of the order dated

06.10.2020 is also produced and marked as Annexure-C. These

are all the contentions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner seeking intervention relating to the impugned order

passed by the KAT vide Annexure-C relating to Application

No.10462/2019 dated 06.10.2010 vide Annexure-A.

5. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents

has taken the contention that after attaining the age of

majority, petitioner being the son of the deceased who had

approached seeking appointment on compassionate ground,

but seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, there

WP No. 102878 of 2021

shall be some rules that are to be followed by the competent

authority for even issuing an endorsement to the mother of the

petitioner. The petitioner must fulfill the criteria stated in Rules

1996. The rules have been framed for enabling the family of a

government servant who died while in service to come out the

financial crisis. There is no dispute about the contentions made

by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking intervention of

the impugned order passed by the KAT. But the contentions

made in this writ petition do not hold any substance to interfere

with the order passed by the KAT seeking the relief in the

nature of certiorari and also mandamus as sought for by urging

various grounds. On these premises, learned Government

Advocate for the respondents seeks dismissal of the writ

petition being devoid of merits.

6. However, keeping in view the submission and also

contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and

also counter arguments advanced by the learned Government

Advocate for the respondents, it is relevant to note that Rule 5

of Rules 1996 and it is only procedural and is not mandatory in

nature. Therefore, compassionate appointment of the

dependent children, who attained majority beyond one year of

WP No. 102878 of 2021

the death of the government employee should not be construed

to be invalid. Whereas the petitioner in his case has to be

considered under the un-amended rules which permit a minor

dependent to apply for appointment on compassionate ground

within one year of attaining the majority. However, insofar as

describing the Rule 9 as a transsional provision where under

the period for making an application has been changed through

the various amendments. Further, the retrospective application

of the amended provisions should not lead to cancellation of the

appointment. On all these premises, the learned counsel for the

petitioner seeking intervention and also seeking quashing of the

order passed by the KAT.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has facilitated the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil

Appeal No.4103/2022 in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy

vs State of Orissa and Others, wherein it is held that,

applicants in several cases have to approach the concerned

High Courts seeking a writ of mandamus for the consideration

of their applications. Even after such direction is issued,

frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the

applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the

WP No. 102878 of 2021

order of rejection before the High Court which leads to

pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family

of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in

financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the

authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applicants made

for compassionate appointment are rejected. After several

years or are not considered at all as in the instant case.

8. In the aforesaid reliance, it is further made an

observation that, if the object and purpose of appointment on

compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant

policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and

necessary that such applications are considered well in time

and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for

nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application

made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This

consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of

granting compassionate appointment on the death of the

employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that

such applications must be considered at an earliest point of

time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on

relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on

WP No. 102878 of 2021

the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of

the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of

appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved.

9. This reliance facilitated by the learned counsel for

the petitioner for the purpose of consideration and in this

reliance, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

relating to the concept of compassionate appointment and also

seeking job on compassionate grounds and it is applicable to

the present case on hand relating to the similar issues.

However, keeping in view the contentions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner urging various grounds and also ratio

of reliance which is facilitated by the counsel having some

substance relating to the certain materials, but the object and

purpose of appointment on compassionate ground as

envisaged, it is in accordance with the ethos of the Constitution

of India.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order dated 06.10.2020 passed in

Application No.10462/2019 passed by the Karnataka State

Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi vide Annexure-C is hereby

quashed.

WP No. 102878 of 2021

Respondents No.2-The Additional Commissioner of Public

Instructions, Dharwad and respondent No.3-The Deputy

Director of Public Instruction (Admn), Belagavi District to

consider the representation, if freshly filed by the petitioner by

urging various grounds, in addition to the grounds which are

already urged, the same shall be filed within 15 days from the

date of receipt of copy of this order and also facilitating

materials for consideration for securing the appointment on

compassionate ground.

If the representation is filed afresh by facilitating

materials, the same shall be considered sympathetically

keeping in view the ratio of reliance rendered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court within two months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order. Accordingly ordered.

In the meanwhile, registry is directed to forward this copy

of the order to the aforesaid respondent Nos.2 and 3 to

proceed in accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE MBS