Karnataka High Court
Mr. Chandan R vs State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.6587 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. CHANDAN R.
S/O LATE H C RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT 453, 6TH A CROSS,
4TH MAIN ROAD,
HEALTH LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 091.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAMANANDA A.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION,
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
IN KARNATAKA
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.
2
3. THE PRINCIPAL
GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGE,
PANDAVAPURA
MANDYA - 571 434.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 AND R3
FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION OR RE-CONSIDERATION FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF FIRST DIVISION ACCOUNTANT BASED ON
THE DEGREE INSTEAD OF SECOND DIVISION ACCOUNTANT AND
BY ALLOWING THE PETITIONER TO SUBMIT ALL THE REQUIRED
QUALIFICATION RECORDS OF DEGREE ANNEXED TO THE
APPLICATION DATED 17/05/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
SUBMITTED TO THE R3 AND APPLICATION 24/06/2022
SUBMITTED TO THE TO THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A1.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 28.03.2024 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed to direct respondent
Nos.2 and 3 to consider petitioner's fresh application for
compassionate appointment based on degree qualification
and to consider the petitioner for the post of First Division
Accountant as against Second Division Accountant.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
Petitioner's father expired on 29.06.2021. Petitioner
on the basis of 2nd PUC has applied for compassionate
appointment on 17.05.2022 and 24.06.2022. Petitioner
contends that he ought to have completed his Engineering
degree before 15.06.2022 and on account of COVID-19
pandemic, exams were delayed and consequently,
petitioner was unable to seek employment based on
graduation degree. He would further contend that the
Government has issued a Circular on 29.06.2022 for
relaxation on delayed publication of results and as per the
Circular, he is entitled for relaxation and therefore, his
subsequent qualification should be considered and he is
eligible to be considered for the post of First Division
Accountant as against Second Division Accountant.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner
and learned AGA for the respondents. Perused the records.
4. Petitioner is appointed as Second Division
Accountant on 23.08.2023. Petitioner has submitted
application for compassionate appointment on 17.05.2022
to respondent No.3 and on 24.06.2022 to respondent No.2.
Petitioner's contention that his subsequent qualification of
Engineering should be considered and he should be
appointed as First Division Accountant cannot be acceded
to. It is trite that the qualification on which the applicant
possesses on the date of application is to be considered.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Jal
Board vs. Nirmala Devi1, has specifically observed at para
6 that the qualification prevailing on the date of applying for
compassionate appointment is to be considered and not the
date on which the application for compassionate
appointment is considered.
6. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. Government (NCT of Delhi)
(2022) 10 SCC 696
& Others2, while taking note of various judgments has
observed that "the legal preposition that emerges from the
settled position of law as enumerated above is that the
result of the examination does not relate back to the date
of examination. A person would possess qualification only
on the date of declaration of the result".
7. Firstly, it's essential to reiterate that the
petitioner submitted his application for compassionate
appointment on 17.05.2022 and 24.06.2022 respectively.
At that point of time, the petitioner did not hold the
qualification of an engineering degree, as the exams had
not yet been conducted, nor had the results been declared.
8. The legal principle highlighted in the judgments,
particularly the one referenced from the case of Dehi Jal
Board vs. Nirmala Devi (supra), emphasizes that
qualifications prevailing at the time of application are to be
considered for compassionate appointment. This means
(2013) 11 SCC 58
that regardless of the delays in exam scheduling and result
declaration due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner's
subsequent qualification in engineering cannot retroactively
upgrade his eligibility for the position of a First Division
Accountant.
9. The judgment cited from the case of Rakesh
Kumar Sharma vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) (supra),
further reinforces this principle by stating that a person only
possesses a qualification on the date of declaration of the
result. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that the delay
in scheduling exam should be considered for his
compassionate appointment lacks merit, as the relevant
qualification is determined at the time of application, not at
the time of examination or result declaration.
10. The petitioner would rely on government circular
issued on 29.06.2022 for relaxation. The relevant portion
of the Circular is culled out as under:
"PÉÆëqï-19gÀ ¸ÁAPÁæ«ÄPÀzÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ zÉñÁzÀåAvÀ
¯ÁPïqË£ï WÉÆõÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ PÁgÀt 2019-2020 £Éà ±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ
¸Á°£À°è r¥ÉÆèêÀÄ, L.n.L., EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï, ¥ÀzÀ« ºÁUÀÆ
E¤ßvÀgÉ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£À «zÁåºÀðvÉ ¥sÀ°vÁA±À ¥ÀæPÀluÉAiÀÄ°è
«¼ÀA§ªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÁUÀ¯ÉÃ
ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ, 1996gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ DvÀ£À CªÀ®A©vÀgÀ°è
M§âgÀÄ ¤UÀ¢vÀ PÁ¯ÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ
CAvÀºÀ CªÀ®A©vÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉUÀ¼À ¥ÀjÃPÁë
¥sÀ°vÁA±À ¥ÀæPÀluÉAiÀÄÄ 2019-20£Éà ¸Á°£À°è PÉÆëqï-19gÀ
PÁgÀt¢AzÀ «¼ÀA§ªÁVzÀÝ°è CAvÀºÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «±ÉõÀ
¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹, 2019-2020£À°è «¼ÀA§ªÁV
¥ÀæPÀlUÉÆAqÀ r¥ÉÆèêÀiÁ, L.n.L., EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï, ¥ÀzÀ« ºÁUÀÆ
E¤ßvÀgÉ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£À «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ ¥sÀ°vÁA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß UÀt£ÉUÉ
vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ
J¯Áè ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ/£ÉêÀÄPÁw ¥Áæ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVzÉ."
11. The Government Circular appears to be specific
to the publication of examination results that were delayed
due to COVID-19 pandemic for the year 2019-20. Since the
petitioner's examination results were declared in August
2022, it falls outside the purview of the mentioned Circular,
which specifically addresses delays for the year 2019-20.
Therefore, petitioner cannot rely on this Circular to support
his contention for considering the delayed examination
results in their application for compassionate appointment.
12. The Circular's applicability is limited by its scope,
and it does not extend to cover delays in examination
results beyond the specified timeframe. As a result, the
petitioner cannot invoke the aid of this Circular to bolster
his claim for consideration of delayed examination results in
the context of compassionate appointment. Therefore, the
said relaxation cannot be applied to the case of petitioner.
13. For the reasons stated supra, writ petition is
devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.
Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration
and stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
