Karnataka High Court
Smt Priyanka Halamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 September, 2024
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12880-DB
WP No. 105264 of 2024
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.105264 OF 2024 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PRIYANKA HALAMANI
W/O LATE PRAVEEN HALAMANI
AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. C N PATTANASHETTI,
SALA ONI, NEAR GANESH TEMPLE,
GULEDGUDDA, BAGALKOT-587203.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
RURAL DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION
DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
1 FLOOR, 'E' BLOCK, KHB BUILDING, KAVERI BHAVAN,
Digitally signed K.G ROAD, BANGALORE-560009
by JAGADISH T
R R/BY. ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka, 2. THE COMMISSIONER
Dharwad Bench
RURAL DRINKING WATER AND
SANITATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
1 FLOOR, 'E' BLOCK, KHB BUILDING,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
RURAL DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION CIRCLE,
NEAR DURGA COLONY, HALIYAL ROAD,
DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12880-DB
WP No. 105264 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, READ DOWN THE
PROVISIONS OF RULE 2 OF THE KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICES
(APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS) RULES, 1996 SO
AS TO INCLUDE WIDOWED DAUGHTER-IN-LAW IN THE DEFINITION.
(II) ISSUE ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY
THE KSAT, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.10005/2024 DATED
04/01/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-B & ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
This petition seeks to call in question the Service
Tribunal's order dated 04.01.2024 whereby petitioner's
Application No.10005/2024 has been negatived. The
grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was the
non-consideration of her candidature for compassionate
appointment.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
his usual vehemence submits that the definition of 'family'
given under Rule 2(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment)
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12880-DB
Rules, 2021, in order to be saved from the vice of
arbitrariness has to be construed to include daughter-in-
law of the family and if that is done, the petitioner would
get employment on compassionate ground. In support of
this, he presses into service a Full Bench decision of
Alhabad High Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., vs.
Urmila Devi1.
3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for
the Official Respondents passionately resists the petition
contending that the doctrine of separation of power is
recognized as a Basic Feature of the Constitution vide
Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs. Shri Raj Narayan2; the rules
in question being made by the delegate of the legislature
need to be shown due deference by the co-ordinate
organs of the State namely the judiciary; the Rule Maker
in his wisdom has not included daughter-in-law in the
definition of 'family' consciously; that being the position
adding daughter-in-law to the definition would virtually
2011 SCC OnLine All 152, para-8
AIR 1975 SC 2299
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12880-DB
amount to manhandling the law which is impermissible. In
support of his contention, he relies upon a Co-Ordinate
Bench decision in Pallavi G.M. vs. Managing Director,
Karnataka Power Transmission Company Limited
(KPTCL) Cauvery Bhavan and others3.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the petition papers, we decline
indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the
submission of learned Government Advocate. The stand of
the Official Respondents is adumbrated by the
observations in Pallavi supra wherein paragraph No.4
reads as under:
"4. It hardly needs to be stated that the
appointment on compassionate ground is an
exception to the general rule of equality in public
employment enacted in Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution vide THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS.
DEBABRATA TIWARI AND OTHERS, 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 219 and therefore, the Rules providing for such
appointment need to be construed strictly. Courts
through the process of interpretation cannot expand
the contours of a statutory definition. When the Rule
Maker in so many words has specified the persons as
being the members of family of an employee, we
2023 SCC OnLine KAR 61
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12880-DB
cannot add one to or delete one from the definition
of family. An argument to the contrary if accepted,
would amount to rewriting the Rule, and therefore,
cannot be countenanced."
5. The Alhabad High Court decision in U.P.Power
Corporation Ltd., (supra) at paragraph No.8 reads as
under;
8. Upon applicability of aforesaid
judgment, it is apparent that petitioner's application
for compassionate appointment of the fair price shop
in question has been rejected only on the ground
that she does not come come within the definition of
'family as per paragraph IV(X) of the government
order dated 5th August, 2019 this aspect of the
matter having already been covered by the
judgment of this Court indicated herein above, the
ground for rejection of petitioner's application for
compassionate appointment is clearly
unsustainable."
We are in respectful difference with the above decision
which has not adverted to the doctrine of separation
powers, which is treated as a basic feature of the
Constitution vide Indira Nehru Gandhi supra. The law
maker as a matter of policy has framed the definition of
'family' to include specific relatives of the employee dying
in harness and the daughter-in-law is not one of them. It
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12880-DB
is not within the domain of Courts to expand or constrict a
statutory definition.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the court should invoke the doctrine of
reading down and thereby add daughter-in-law to the
definition of family for the purpose of staking claim for
compassionate appointment, does not merit acceptance
and reasons for this are not for to seek. Ordinarily this
doctrine is invoked to trim the contours of law which
otherwise suffers from the vice of over inclusiveness or
such other infirmity and therefore is falling foul of a higher
legal norm such as the parent statute, the constitution,
etc. The Courts do not readily resort to this doctrine in the
absence of challenge to the legal provision on some
constitutional/statutory grounds. Admittedly, there is no
challenge to the definition clause which gives the meaning
of family for the purpose of extant Rules. No Rule or
Ruling nor opinio juris is cited at the Bar to support the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12880-DB
preposition that by the process of reading down, the scope
of an instrument of law can be expanded.
7. The doctrine of reading down may be invoked
and applied if the statute is silent, ambiguous or admits
more than one interpretation. But where it is express, and
clearly mandates to take certain action or to mean certain
things, the function of the Court is to interpret it plainly.
In the absence of challenge, ordinarily courts do not
permit the invocation of this doctrine to alter the policy
content of a statute. It is relevant to see what the Apex
Court observed in Minerva Mills Vs. UOI4
"64. ... The device of reading down is not to
be resorted to in order to save the susceptibilities
of the law makers, nor indeed to imagine a law of
one's liking to have been passed. One must at least
take the Parliament at its word ...
65. ... If the Parliament has manifested a
clear intention to exercise an unlimited power, it is
impermissible to read down the amplitude of that
power so as to make it limited. The principle of
reading down cannot be invoked or applied in
opposition to the clear intention of the legislature
..."
AIR 1980 SC 1789
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12880-DB
The above observations broadly support our view that the
doctrine is not invocable in the case at hand.
8. For the purpose of compassionate appointment,
who all can lay a claim, is a matter of public policy that
falls within the domain of law-maker, and the Courts being
his coordinate branch, cannot run a race of opinions with
him. A greater wisdom lies in confining to the conventional
limits of judicial process, leaving the legislative one to the
other coordinate branch, than otherwise. More is not
necessary to specify.
In the above circumstance, this writ petition is liable
to be rejected and accordingly it is, costs having been
made easy.
We appreciate both the learned advocate appearing
for the petitioner Sri Shivaraj S.Balloli and the learned
Government Advocate Sri G.K. Hiregoudar representing
the official respondents for the way they conducted this
case with ingenuity and passion. The Registry shall share
a copy of this order, if they apply for.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12880-DB
This Court places on record its deep appreciation for
the able research & assistance rendered by its official law
clerk cum Research Assistant Mr. Raghunandan K.S.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
SSP
