Karnataka High Court
Smt Shruthi J U vs Chief Secretary on 24 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29070-DB
WP No. 15771 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.15771 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT SHRUTHI J U
D/O LATE UMESHA J
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT C/O MANJUNATHA S.N
D.NO.183, HARITHSA NILAYA
CHIKKAHONNENAHALLI
NEAR SBI BANK, HASSAN - 01
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHIEF SECRETARY
Digitally signed STATE OF KARNATAKA
by
CHANNEGOWDA VIDHANA SOUDHA
PREMA
Location: High BENGALURU - 01
Court of
Karnataka
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT &
PANCHAYATH RAJ
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH
HASSAN - 01
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29070-DB
WP No. 15771 of 2022
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN - 01
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIVEK ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R4;
MS. MOUNIKA M, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR IN THE NATURE THEREOF OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 18/07/2022 IN A.NO.4903/2021 (ANNEXURE-A)
PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved
by the rejection of an application filed by him before the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short) by its order dated
18.07.2022.
NC: 2024:KHC:29070-DB
2. It is submitted that the petitioner is the daughter of
Sri. Umesha J., who passed away on 08.02.2013 while he was
working as Group-D employee in Zilla Panchayath, Hassan in
the department of Rural Development and Panchayath Raj.
The petitioner had submitted an application dated 23.12.2013
seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the
Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate
Grounds) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules,
1996' for short). It is submitted that the said request has been
rejected by Annexure - A5 by the 3rd respondent dated
19.07.2021 on the short ground that she is a married daughter
and that the eligibility for appointment provided under the
Rules was only for an unmarried daughter or a widowed
daughter and that the married daughter would not be entitled
for appointment in terms of the Rules.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contends that the said provision of the Rules has been
considered by the learned Single Judge in SMT
BHUVANESHWARI V PURANIK vs THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS AND OTHERS (ILR 2021 KAR
NC: 2024:KHC:29070-DB
5256) and the disentitlement provided for under the Rules in
respect of a married daughter has been found to be a
discriminatory provision and has been struck down. It is
submitted that the writ petition is allowed holding that the
exclusion of the married daughters from the ambit of
expression 'family' in Rule 2(1)(a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule
3(2)(i)(c) of the Rules, 1996 is illegal and unconstitutional
being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India
and the word "unmarried" in the said Rules was accordingly
struck down and the respondents were directed to consider the
claims of the writ petitioner therein for appointment on
compassionate grounds. It is submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the appeal filed by the State of
Karnataka against the said judgment has been dismissed by
order vide Annexure - D dated 22.03.2021 by the Division
Bench of this Court and that Apex Court also by Annexure - E
has considered the issue and has approved the view taken by
the learned Single Judge in the case of BHUVANESHWARI V
PURANIK supra. It is submitted that in the above
circumstances, the rejection of the application of the petitioner
for compassionate appointment by 3rd respondent on the sole
NC: 2024:KHC:29070-DB
ground that she is the married daughter of the deceased was
per se illegal and the application ought to have been considered
taking note of the Rules as prevailing after the judgment of the
learned Single Judge in the case of BHUVANESHWARI V
PURANIK supra.
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf
of the respondents submits that appointment under the
compassionate appointment scheme is only an exemption to
the general rules of appointment to Government service by
competitive selection process and that the purpose of such
compassionate appointment has to be taken into account while
considering cases of this nature. It is contended that the
question whether the applicant was a dependent of the
deceased employee and was staying along with the widow of
the deceased employee i.e. the mother of the applicant at the
relevant time are factors to be taken into consideration. It is
contended that a learned Single Judge of this Court in a
judgment dated 07.07.2023 in Writ Petition No.2129/2022,
relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF
MAHARASTRA AND ANOTHER vs MADHURI MARUTHI
VIDHATE (AIR 2022 SC 5176) has held that the question of
NC: 2024:KHC:29070-DB
dependency and benefit to the bereaved family are matters
which have to be considered while considering the application
for compassionate appointment. It is submitted that those
aspects have not been considered in the present case.
5. Having considered the contentions advanced on
either side, we notice that Annexure - A5, the order of rejection
proceeds only on the basis that the petitioner is the married
daughter and therefore is not entitled for compassionate
appointment. The effect of the judgment of the learned Single
Judge of this Court which struck down the word 'unmarried' in
Rules 2 and 3 of the 1996 Rules and the fact that the said
judgment has been upheld by a Division Bench as also
approved by the Apex Court has gone unnoticed by the
Authority which passed the order impugned before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal also appears to have proceeded on the
basis that the validity of the amended Rules dated 02.02.2021
which are only prospective in nature, has not been challenged
by the applicant. However, the fact that Rules, 1996 have
been struck down to the extent that they deny consideration of
request for compassionate appointment to married daughters
has not been considered by the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:29070-DB
6. In the light of the judgment of this Court which has
been upheld by the Apex Court, we are of the opinion that the
rejection of the prayer made by the petitioner herein for
compassionate appointment on the sole ground that the
applicant is the married daughter of the deceased employee is
completely untenable. In the above view of the matter, we are
of the opinion that the judgment of the Tribunal requires
interference.
7. We are also of the opinion that Annexure - A5 which
is impugned before the Tribunal requires to be set-aside and a
direction be issued to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the
issue taking note of the binding principles and the Rule position
as it stood at the relevant time.
8. In the above view of the matter, we dispose of this
writ petition with the following directions:
i. The judgment of the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal which is impugned in
this writ petition shall stand set-aside.
ii. The order of the 3rd respondent which is
impugned before the Karnataka State
NC: 2024:KHC:29070-DB
Administrative Tribunal shall also stand set-
aside.
iii. A direction is issued to the 3rd respondent to
consider the application submitted by the
petitioner for compassionate appointment in
terms of the Rules in force without reference to
the fact that the applicant is the married
daughter of the deceased employee. However,
the application shall be taken up and
considered taking note of all the relevant
matters and order shall be passed within a
period of two months from the date of receipt
of copy of this judgment.
Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
MH/-
