Kumar Shivanand Maruti Akki vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 3977 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Kumar Shivanand Maruti Akki vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 February, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC-D:3017
                                                         WP No. 107332 of 2024




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                         DHARWAD BENCH

                           DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                               BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 107332 OF 2024 (S-RES)

                      BETWEEN:

                      KUMAR SHIVANAND MARUTI AKKI,
                      AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
                      R/O. CHIKKUR PLOT AT POST. RAINAPUR,
                      TQ. SAVANDATTI,
                      DIST. BELAGAVI- 591129.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. SHARAD MALGOUND PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                           KARNATAKA STATE FIRE AND
                           EMERGENCY SERVICE,
                           1, ANNASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
                           HERMIT COLONY,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
                           SIVANCHETTI GARDENS,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad                    BENGALURU,
                           KARNATAKA- 560042.

                      2.   DEPUTY DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION,
                           KARNATAKA FIRE SERVICE,
                           1, ANNASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD,
                           HERMIT COLONY,
                           SIVANCHETTI GARDENS,
                           BENGALURU, KARNATAKA- 560042.

                      3.   CHIEF FIRE SERVICE OFFICER,
                           KARNATAKA FIRE SERVICE,
                           HUBBALLI- 580020.
                               -2-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC-D:3017
                                       WP No. 107332 of 2024




4.   REGIONAL FIRE SERVICE OFFICER,
     HUBLI DIVISION,
     HUBBALLI- 580020.

5.   DISTRICT FIRE SERVICE OFFICER,
     BELAGAVI DISTRICT FIRE SERVICE,
     BELAGAVI- 590001.

6.   FIRE SERVICE OFFICER,
     BAILHONGAL FIRE STATION,
     BAILHONGAL- 591102,
     BELGAVI.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTHILATA R. PATIL, HCGP)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO A. ISSUE
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO. 1
AND 2 TO CONSIDER FAVORABLY THE REPRESENTATION
GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-C, DATED
27-03-2021. B. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER(S) AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO MEET THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

                          ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a

direction to consider representation submitted on

27.03.2021 to respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Sharad

Malgound Patil appearing for the petitioner and the learned

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3017

HCGP Smt.Kirthilata R.Patil representing the respondent-

State.

3. The father of the petitioner was employed as a

driver in the Karnataka Fire Department. He dies in

harness on 04.12.2001. At the time of the death of the

father of the petitioner, he was 10 years old. Therefore,

waits till he attains the age of 18 years and submits a

representation on 27.03.2021 seeking an appointment on

compassionate grounds on account of the death of his

father which had by then happened 2 decades ago. The

representation is not considered by the State and

therefore the petitioner is before this Court in the subject

petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that if a direction is issued to consider the representation

of the petitioner that would suffice for the present.

5. The HCGP would seek dismissal of the petition

on account of delay.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3017

6. What is sought by the petitioner is issuance of a writ

in the nature of mandamus. For an issuance of a writ

in the nature of mandamus, there should be a

semblance of right on the person who knocks at the

doors of the Constitutional Court and then springs

the obligation on the part of the State. The petitioner

is the son of a person who was employed in the

Karnataka Fire Department and dies in harness 24

years ago today. The family has sustained for 24

years and after 24 years, a direction to consider the

case of the petitioner for appointment on

compassionate grounds only on the score that when

the death of the father had happened the son was 10

years old and now he is 25 years old and it should be

considered, will run foul of the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of State of J & K and others vs.

Sajad Ahmad Mir, (2006)5 SCC 766, wherein the

Apex Court has held as under:

"11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3017

applicant holding that he had sought 'compassion', the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.

12. xxx

13.xxx

14. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors. [(1994) 4 SCC 138], it was ruled that public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and on merits. The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment. It is merely an exception to the requirement of law keeping in view the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. Such appointments on compassionate ground, therefore, have to be made in accordance with rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. This favorable treatment to the dependant of the deceased employee must have clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved thereby, i.e. relief against destitution. At the same time, however, it should not be forgotten that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3017

millions and millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectation, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment, which are suddenly upturned.

15. In Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1989) 4 SCC 468], it was observed that in claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should be no delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.

16. Recently, in Commissioner of Public Instructions & Ors. v. K.R. Vishwanath, [(2005) 7 SCC 206], one of us (Pasayat, J.) had an occasion to consider the above decisions and the principles laid down therein have been reiterated.

17. In the case on hand, the father of the applicant died in March, 1987. The application was made by the applicant after four and half years in September, 1991 which was rejected in March, 1996. The writ petition was filed in June, 1999 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge in July, 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the date of death of the father of the applicant. The said fact was indeed a relevant and material fact which went to show that the family survived in spite of death of the employee. Moreover, in our opinion, the learned single Judge was also right in holding that though the order was passed in 1996, it was not challenged by the applicant immediately. He took chance of challenging the order in 1999 when there was inter- departmental communication in 1999. The Division Bench, in our view, hence ought not to have allowed the appeal."

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3017

7. In the light of the aforesaid judgment and

unequivocal facts, petition does not merit any

consideration, petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE