Karnataka High Court
Sri. Anand S/O Appasaheb Koli vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2023
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
WP No. 104562 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 104562 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. ANAND S/O APPASAHEB KOLI,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED,
R/O. H.NO. 210/2A, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE ROAD,
BEHIND OF IDBI BANK CHIKKODI,
CHAWAL GOKAK, TALUK GOKAK,
DISTRICT BELAGAVI-591307.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H M DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY IT'S UNDER SECRETARY,
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
DEPARTMENT OF POWER,
RAKESH Location: High
Court of
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
S Karnataka,
Dharwad
HARIHAR Date:
2023.06.21
12:17:02
2. THE SECRETARY,
+0530
KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE DIRECTOR,
ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD,
-2-
WP No. 104562 of 2021
BENGALURU-560005.
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER,
EXECUTIVE AND MAINTENANCE CIRCLE,
HUBBALLI ELECTRICY SUPLY COMPANY LTD.,
BELAGAVI-590001.
6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V),
EXECUTIVE AND MAINTENANCE DIVISION,
HUBBALLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,
GHATAPRABHA, DIST: BELAGAVI-591311.
7. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V),
EXECUTIVE AND MAINTENANCE SUB-DIVISION,
HUBBALLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,
GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK S KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. B S KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
UNDER NO.K.V.PRA. NE.NE/B5C/84604/ 2018-19 DATED
29.8.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-S & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 104562 of 2021
ORDER
1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a
prayer to quash endorsement at Annexure-S dated
29.08.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent and to issue a
writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider
appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground by
considering his application dated 05.07.2021 at Annexure-
T in the light of the orders passed by the 3rd respondent
dated 28.01.2019 vide Annexure-J.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner's father late Appasaheb
Narasappa Koli was allegedly working as a lineman at
Gokak division of the respondent-Corporation. It appears
that he had died in harness and thereafter his 2nd wife was
given compassionate appointment. It appears that even
the 2nd wife had died in harness. It is under these
circumstances, the petitioner's brother Shankar Appasaheb
Koli had filed an application seeking compassionate
appointment and the same was rejected by the
respondent-Corporation on 22.12.2006 vide Annexure-F.
WP No. 104562 of 2021
Thereafter the petitioner appears to have made an
application on 11.03.2019 seeking compassionate
appointment. The said application was considered and
rejected by the Corporation on 29.08.2019 vide Annexure-
S. Subsequently the petitioner has made a fresh
application on 05.07.2021 to reconsider his candidature
for compassionate appointment in the light of the
resolution passed by the respondent No.3 on 28.01.2019
vide Annexure-J. Assailing the order of rejection dated
29.08.2019 at Annexure-S and also seeking consequential
relief, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to
the order at Annexure-J submits that, the regulation of the
respondent-Corporation which earlier provided that the
appointment under the regulation shall be considered once
for the family, was subsequently modified and it has been
decided that even the dependants of an employee who
was given compassionate appointment are also entitled to
file application seeking compassionate appointment and
therefore the petitioner's application ought to have been
WP No. 104562 of 2021
considered in the light of Annexure-J. He submits that the
application filed by the petitioner's brother was rejected in
the year 2006 and after attaining the age of majority, the
petitioner has filed the present application which is
erroneously rejected by the respondent-Corporation. He
submits that since the petitioner is otherwise qualified for
appointment, the respondent-Corporation was not justified
in rejecting his application.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
Corporation who has filed statement of objection has
argued in support of the impugned endorsement and
submits that the application has been filed belatedly after
14 years and the Corporation has rightly rejected the
application. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar
Vs.State of Bihar and ors. in Special Leave Petition
No.12876/2000 disposed of on 28.08.2000 and in the
case of The Secretary to Govt. Department of
Education (Primary) & Ors. Vs.Bheemesh Alias
WP No. 104562 of 2021
Bheemappa in Civil Appeal No.7752/2021 disposed of
on 16.12.2021.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on both sides.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's mother
was given appointment on compassionate ground by the
respondent-Corporation and after the death of the
petitioner's mother, Shankar Appasaheb Koli who is the
brother of the petitioner had filed an application seeking
compassionate appointment and the same was rejected by
the Corporation vide Annexure-F dated 22.12.2006. The
said rejection order was not challenged at any point of
time. The petitioner who is born in the year 1992, has filed
application seeking compassionate appointment in the
year 2019, though he had attained the age of majority in
the year 2010. Therefore, it is very clear that there was a
delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the application.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar
(supra) has observed as follows:
WP No. 104562 of 2021
"This Court has held in a number of cases that
compassionate appointment is intended to enable
the family of the deceased employee to tide over
sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread
earner who had left the family in penury and
without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view
has been expressed in the very decision cited by the
petitioner in Director of Education & Anr. v.
Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. supra. It is also
Significant to notice that on the date when the first
application was made by the petitioner on 2.6.88,
the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for
appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner.
There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such
time as the petitioner becomes a major after a
number of years, unless there is some specific
provisions. The very basis of compass-sionate
appointment is to see that the family gets
immediate relief."
8. In the case of The Secretary to Govt.
Department of Education (Primary) & Ors. (supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 7 has observed
as follows:
"7. As held by this Court repeatedly, every
appointment to a post or service must be strictly by
adhering to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the
WP No. 104562 of 2021
Constitution. Appointment on compassionate
grounds, is an exception to the regular mode of
recruitment, as it is intended to provide succor to
the deceased Government servant, which is thrown
out of gear both financially and otherwise, due to
the sudden death of the Government servant in
harness."
9. Considering the aforesaid judgments, I am of
the view that no error can be found in the endorsement
issued by the respondent-Corporation rejecting petitioner's
application for compassionate appointment. The impugned
endorsement has been issued in the year 2019 and the
same has been questioned by the petitioner in the year
2021. Therefore even on the ground of delay and latches,
the petitioner loses his right to claim any relief. Under
these circumstances, I am of the view that the writ
petition lacks merit. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Kgk/Ct:Bck
