Karnataka High Court
Sri. Anand S/O Appasaheb Koli vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 August, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10584-DB
WA No. 100451 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100451 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI. ANAND S/O. APPASAHEB KOLI,
AGE: 31 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.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H. M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
AND
Digitally signed by
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN BY IT'S UNDER SECRETARY,
KATTIMANI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
DEPARTMENT OF POWER,
Dharwad Bench
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K. G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE DIRECTOR,
ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K. G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10584-DB
WA No. 100451 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K. G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER,
EXECUTIVE AND MAINTENANCE CIRCLE,
HUBBALLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY 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. V. S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. B. S. KAMATE, ADV. FOR R2 TO R7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2023 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION IN
W.P.NO.104562/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND
ALLOWS WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT
HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
18.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10584-DB
WA No. 100451 of 2023
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This intra-Court appeal is filed challenging the order
dated 16.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.104562/2021 passed by
the learned Single Judge wherein the writ petition filed by the
appellant came to be rejected.
2. Heard.
3. Sri.H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant submits that the father of the appellant was
working as a Lineman with the third respondent-Corporation
and after his death, his second wife was provided employment
on compassionate ground. It is submitted that Smt.Gunarani-
the second wife of deceased Appasab (employee) died while in
service leaving behind one daughter and two sons including the
appellant and two sons and two daughters of Sushila who was
the first wife of the employee. It is further submitted that
brother of the appellant filed an application seeking for
appointment on compassionate ground which came to be
rejected. It is also submitted that there were correspondences
between the respondent-Corporation and the State
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10584-DB
HC-KAR
Government as to providing second compassionate
appointment and the Government on 12.05.2011 clarified that
the second compassionate appointment is permissible and
therefore the third respondent decided to provide
compassionate appointment to the employees who were also
appointed on compassionate ground and who died before
12.05.2011. It is contended that the appellant filed an
application along with documents seeking for appointment on
compassionate grounds on 11.03.2019 and contrary to the
decision of the Corporation and the Government order, the
application of the appellant came to be rejected on 29.08.2019
which was challenged before the learned Single Judge.
However, the same was not properly appreciated. It is further
contended that there is no delay in filing an application as the
third respondent - Corporation has taken the decision to
provide compassionate appointment only on 28.01.2019 and
the application of the appellant was filed on 11.03.2019. Hence,
he seeks to issue direction to the respondent-Corporation to
reconsider the case of the appellant.
4. Per contra, Sri.B.S.Kamate, learned counsel
appearing for respondents No.2 to 7 and learned AGA
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10584-DB
HC-KAR
appearing for respondent No.1-State support the order of the
learned Single Judge and submit that the application of the
appellant was rightly rejected by the authority on the ground of
delay as it was filed after 14 years 11 months 10 days. Hence,
they seek to dismiss the appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents,
meticulously perused the material available on record and we
have given our anxious consideration to the submissions
advanced.
6. The material available on record indicates that the
Appellant's father Appasab Narsappa Koli was working as a
Lineman with the third respondent-Corporation. He died while
in service leaving behind the second wife and children of the
first wife and children of the second wife. The second wife of
employee filed an application seeking for appointment on
compassionate ground which was allowed and she was provided
employment. She worked as Junior Assistant at the
respondent-Corporation. The records further indicate that the
mother of the appellant Smt.Gunarani died on 23.04.2004
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10584-DB
HC-KAR
while on service. The appellant's brother Shankar Appasab Koli
filed an application seeking for appointment on compassionate
grounds which came to be rejected on 22.12.2006. Admittedly,
the rejection of the application of the appellant's brother has
attained finality. The appellant filed an application seeking for
appointment on compassionate ground on 22.05.2017. The
records indicate that the appellant's date of birth is 06.06.1992
and he attained the majority in the year 2010. The mother of
the appellant died on 23.04.2004. Considering the date of
attaining majority by the appellant and date of death of the
mother of the appellant, the application filed by the appellant is
beyond the period of time provided under the Karnataka
Electricity Board Employees' Recruitment (Appointment On
Compassionate Grounds) Regulations, 1997 (for short, '1997
Regulations'). The contention that the Government vide its
order dated 12.05.2011 permitted the compassionate
appointment of the dependent of the deceased employee who
was also appointed on compassionate ground and pursuant to
the said Government order, the respondent-Corporation
adopted the said Government order in the year 2019, hence,
the application filed by the appellant is within the period of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10584-DB
HC-KAR
limitation has no merit. The order dated 28.01.2019 clearly
indicates that the application filed by the dependent of the
deceased employee who was also appointed on compassionate
ground should be valid and has to be filed within the prescribed
period of time. It is a well settled law that for all government
vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all the
aspirants as is mandated under Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground
offered to the dependant of a deceased employee is an
exception to the said norms. Such being the case, the
compassionate appointment is a concession and not a vested
right and the criteria laid down in the rules must be satisfied by
all the aspirants. This view of ours gain support from the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
N.C.Santhosh v State of Karnataka and Others1.
7. In the instant case, the 1997 Regulations of the
corporation referred supra clearly indicate that the application
for compassionate appointment should be filed within a period
of one year after attaining the majority by the dependent.
(2020) 7 SCC 617
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10584-DB
HC-KAR
However, the appellant attained the age of majority in the year
2010 and application for seeking appointment on
compassionate ground is filed only in the year 2017, which is
clearly in violation of the prescribed rules. Learned Single Judge
taking note of the law of the point has rightly recorded the
finding that there is no error in the endorsement issued by the
respondent-Corporation rejecting the application of the
appellant for compassionate appointment. We do not find any
error or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned
Single Judge calling for interference in this intra-Court appeal.
The appeal is devoid of merits, accordingly, the same is
rejected.
No order as to costs.
Sd/
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
RH
CT-AN
