Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Smt Madhu Badiger W/O Late Shivakumar on 14 November, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
W.P. No.104948 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
WRIT PETITION NO.104948 OF 2024 (S KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY &
ENVIRONMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF
FOREST AND HEAD,
KARNATAKA STATE FOREST BATTALION,
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
ARANYA BHAVAN,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.11.15
MALLESHWARAM,
13:04:07 +0530
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
DHARWAD CIRCLE,
DHARWAD,
DIST. DHARWAD-580001.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR AND
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
KARNATAKA STATE FOREST ACADEMY,
-2-
W.P. No.104948 of 2024
GUNGARAGATTI,
DHARWAD,
DIST. DHARWAD-580001.
5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
KARNATAKA STATE FOREST ACADEMY,
GUNGARAGATTI,
DHARWAD, DIST.
DHARWAD-580001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. MADHU BADIGER,
W/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR,
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE,
R/O. HOUSE NO.48, PUROHIT NAGAR,
KALAGHATAGI ROAD,
DHARWAD,
DIST. DHARWAD-580004.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2024
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.10874 OF 2023
(ANNEXURE.C TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 30.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, S G PANDIT J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)
The above writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India by the State Authorities in Forest
Department is directed against the order dated 18.03.2024
passed in Application No.10874/2023 by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (for short, 'the Tribunal'),
whereunder the respondent's application is allowed directing
to consider the representation filed by the applicant on
09.05.2023 and pass orders in providing appointment to the
post of Second Division Assistant (SDA).
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent's
husband, Sri. Shivakumar Gangadhar Badiger, who was
working as SDA in the office of the Deputy Conservator of
Forests, Karnataka State Forest Academy, Dharwad, while in
service died on 10.01.2021. The respondent submitted an
application seeking compassionate appointment on
06.12.2021 enclosing SSLC marks card and necessary
certificates. The respondent passed II Year Pre-University
Course examination in April, 2023 and immediately, thereafter
on 09.05.2023, the respondent is said to have made a
representation to consider her case for compassionate
appointment as SDA. However, the petitioners considering the
application of the respondent dated 06.12.2021 and taking
note of the qualification of the respondent as on the date of
her first representation, appointed her as Group-D employee
vide order dated 07.10.2023, which the respondent accepted
and she is working in the Forest Department. Prior to her
appointment as Group-D employee, under the endorsement
dated 16.08.2023, the respondent's request for appointing her
as SDA was rejected stating that, as on the date of her
application within the time prescribed under the Karnataka
Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds)
Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the 1996 Rules'), the respondent was
not possessing the qualification of PUC. Questioning the said
endorsement, the respondent was before the Tribunal in the
above Application No.10874/2023. The Tribunal, under the
impugned order, allowed the application placing reliance on
Circular dated 27.10.2017 and holding that the application for
compassionate appointment shall be considered in terms of
the Rules applicable as on the date of consideration of the
application. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the
State authorities in Forest Department are before this Court.
3. Heard Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Principal
Government Advocate for the petitioners, and Sri.
H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused
the entire writ petition papers.
4. Learned Prl. Government Advocate would submit
that the Tribunal committed an error in allowing the
application and directing to provide appointment as SDA to
the respondent. He submits that the appointment on
compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of
right, and, further placing reliance on Rule 6(4) of the 1996
Rules, submits that appointment once made under the Rules
shall be final and no fresh appointment to a different post or
higher post would be permissible. Learned Government
Advocate would submit that, in terms of Rule 5 of the 1996
Rules, an application seeking compassionate appointment
shall be made within one year from the date of death of the
government servant and, in the case of a minor, he must have
attained the age of 18 years within two years from the date of
death of the government servant and he must make an
application within two years thereafter. The respondent
submitted the application on 06.12.2021 and, as on the said
date, the respondent possessed the qualification of SSLC only
and she was not eligible for consideration of her candidature
for appointment as SDA. Learned Prl. Government Advocate
would also invite attention of this Court to Rule 6(7) of the
1996 Rules to submit that the appointment under the Rules
would be made in accordance with the provisions that are
prevalent on the date of application. Further, the learned Prl.
Government Advocate would submit that, if the application of
the respondent, dated 09.05.2023 wherein she requested for
appointment as SDA on acquiring PUC qualification is
considered, it would amount to considering an application filed
beyond the time permissible under Rule 5 of 1996 Rules. He
would also submit that the respondent is appointed as
Group-D employee vide order dated 07.10.2023 and having
accepted the said appointment, it is not permissible for the
respondent to seek fresh appointment as SDA. Thus, he would
pray for allowing the writ petition.
5. Per contra, Sri. H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel for
the respondent would submit that the respondent, initially,
made an application seeking compassionate appointment on
06.12.2021 and, as on that date, the respondent possessed
the qualification of SSLC and subsequently, the respondent
acquired the qualification of PUC in April, 2023; as the
application of the respondent was under consideration and no
appointment was issued on compassionate grounds, the
respondent submitted a representation dated 09.05.2023 to
consider her qualification of II Year PUC and appoint her on
compassionate grounds as SDA. Learned counsel referring to
Circular dated 27.10.2017, submits that, while considering the
application for appointment on compassionate grounds,
appointment shall be provided based on the qualification
possessed by such applicants. It is also the submission of the
learned counsel for the respondent that the application for
appointment on compassionate grounds shall be considered in
terms of Rules applicable as on the date of consideration of
the application for appointment in terms of decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of
Karnataka & others1. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the
writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the points
that would arise for consideration are:
i) Whether the respondent, having accepted the
appointment to Group-D post, could seek
appointment to a higher post afresh?
ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal requires interference?
7. The answer to the above questions would be in the
negative and affirmative respectively for the following
reasons:
(a) In the State of Karnataka, appointment on
compassionate grounds is governed by 1996 Rules. Rule
5 provides for making an application for appointment.
The application seeking compassionate appointment
shall be made by the dependent of a deceased
government servant within one year from the date of
(2020)7 SCC 617
death of the government servant, and in case of a minor
he must have attained the age of 18 years within two
years from the date of death of government servant and
he must make an application within two years
thereafter. Rule 3, which specifies the eligibility criteria
for appointment on compassionate grounds, makes it
abundantly clear that appointment under the 1996 Rules
shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be
given as a matter of course. Rule 6(4) and Rule 6(7) of
1996 Rules read as under:
"6. Appointment by the Competent Authority.
(1) x x x x x
(2) x x x x
(4) Appointment once made under these rules
shall be final and no fresh appointment to a different
post or higher post under these rules shall be
permissible.
(5) x x x x
(6) x x x x
(7) The appointment, under these rules shall be
made in accordance with the provisions that are
prevailing on the date of application."
- 10 -
Above Rule 6(4) would make it clear that appointment
once made under the 1996 Rules shall be final and no
fresh appointment to a different post or higher post
under 1996 Rules shall be permissible. Under sub-rule
(7) of Rule 6 of the Rules, it is made abundantly clear
that appointment on compassionate grounds under the
1996 Rules shall be made in accordance with the
provisions that are prevailing on the date of application.
(b) In the case on hand, the respondent made an
application on 06.12.2021 claiming appointment on
compassionate grounds on the death of her husband
who was working as SDA in the office of the petitioner
No.5-Deputy Conservator of Forests, Karnataka State
Forest Academy, Dharwad. It is not in dispute that, as
on the date of making an application the respondent
possessed qualification of SSLC. The respondent
acquired the qualification of II Year PUC only in the
month of April, 2023. In terms of Rule 5 of 1996 Rules,
the application for appointment on compassionate
grounds shall be made within one year from the date of
death of the government servant. The application filed
- 11 -
by the respondent for compassionate appointment is
within time. In terms of the said application, the
petitioner possessed the qualification of SSLC.
Considering the said application and qualification of the
respondent as on the date of making the application, the
respondent was appointed to Group-D post by order
dated 07.10.2023. The respondent accepted the said
appointment as Group-D employee and the respondent
is working as such in the petitioner-department.
(c) Rule 6(4) of the 1996 Rules makes it clear that once the
appointment is made under the 1996 Rules, the same
would be final and no fresh appointment to a different
post or higher post is permissible.
(d) Rule 6(7) of the 1996 Rules would state that
appointment under 1996 Rules shall be made in
accordance with the provisions that are prevailing as on
the date of the application. The said sub-rule (7) of Rule
6 was inserted by Notification dated 09.04.2021,
whereas the respondent's application was dated
06.12.2021. Therefore, in terms of the said Rules, the
- 12 -
application of the respondent shall have to be considered
as on the date of her application i.e., on 06.12.2021 on
which date the respondent possessed the qualification of
SSLC. Taking note of the SSLC qualification, the
respondent was rightly appointed to Group-D post.
(e) The Tribunal placing reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in N.C.Santhosh's case (supra) to
say that consideration of an application for appointment
has to be with regard to Rules prevailing on the date of
consideration and not on the date of filing the
application. Even assuming that Rule applicable as on
the date of consideration of the application is taken into
consideration, Rule 6(7) was in force. However, the said
decision would have no application to the facts and
circumstances of the present case since subsequent to
the said decision Rule 6 is amended and sub-rule (7) is
inserted to say that the application for compassionate
appointment shall be considered in accordance with the
provisions that were prevailing on the date of the
application.
- 13 -
(f) For the reasons recorded above, the Tribunal is not
justified in allowing the application. The Circular on
which the Tribunal placed reliance would only state that
the application for compassionate appointment shall be
considered based on the qualification possessed by such
candidates. In the instant case, the respondent's
application for compassionate appointment was
considered on 06.12.2021, taking note of the
respondent's qualification as on that date i.e., SSLC.
(g) The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao
Singh2, was considering the case of compassionate
appointment and in the course of its order, it is observed
that once a right has consummated, any further or
second consideration for a higher post on the ground of
compassion would not arise. The relevant paragraphs
No.8 and 9 of the said decision read as under:
"8. Admittedly the respondent's father died in
harness while working as Sub-Inspector, CID
(Special Branch) on 16-3-1988. The respondent
filed an application on 8-4-1988 for his
appointment on compassionate ground as Sub-
Inspector or LDC according to the availability of
(1994)6 SCC 560
- 14 -
vacancy. On a consideration of his plea, he was
appointed to the post of LDC by order dated 14-
12-1989. He accepted the appointment as LDC.
Therefore, the right to be considered for the
appointment on compassionate ground was
consummated. No further consideration on
compassionate ground would ever arise.
Otherwise, it would be a case of "endless
compassion". Eligibility to be appointed as Sub-
Inspector of Police is one thing, the process of
selection is yet another thing. Merely because of
the so-called eligibility, the learned Single Judge
of the High Court was persuaded to the view that
direction be issued under proviso to Rule 5 of
Rules which has no application to the facts of this
case.
9. Since both the sides relied on Naresh
Kumar Bali's case, we will now refer to the same.
We had indicated our mind in that very ruling in
paragraph 15 of the said judgment. It reads as
under: (SCC p. 452, para 15)
"Though the respondent claimed that
he had applied for the post of a teacher
the Subordinate Service Selection
Board had not chosen him for the post
of teacher because he did not have the
requisite qualification. In fact, the
respondent did not object to his
appointment as a clerk and his claim for
consideration for the post of teacher
was one year after his
appointment. Thus, the appointment on
compassionate ground as per the
scheme had been completed."
(emphasis supplied)
- 15 -
Therefore, once the right has consummated as we
indicated earlier, any further or second consideration for
a higher post on the ground of compassion would not
arise."
(h) Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in I.G. (Karmik)
and others Vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi3, was again
considering a case of compassionate appointment and
placing reliance on Umrao Singh's case (supra) at
paragraph 7, 8, 9 and 12 has observed as follows:
"7. Public employment is considered to be a
wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme
cannot be given on descent. When such an
exception has been carved out by this Court, the
same must be strictly complied with. Appointment
on compassionate ground is given only for meeting
the immediate hardship which is faced by the
family by reason of the death of the bread earner.
When an appointment is made on compassionate
ground, it should be kept confined only to the
purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to
provide for endless compassion.
8. In National Institute of
Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh this Court has
stated the law in the following terms : (SCC p.
487, para 16)
(2007) 6 SCC 162
- 16 -
"16. All public appointments
must be in consonance with Article 16
of the Constitution of India.
Exceptions carved out therefore are
the cases where appointments are to
be given to the widow or the
dependent children of the employee
who died in harness. Such an
exception is carved out with a view to
see that the family of the deceased
employee who has died in harness
does not become a destitute. No
appointment, therefore, on
compassionate ground can be granted
to a person other than those for
whose benefit the exception has been
carved out. Other family members of
the deceased employee would not
derive any benefit thereunder."
9. In State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh this
Court has categorically stated that once the right is
consummated, any further or second consideration
for higher post on the ground of compassion would
not arise.
12. Furthermore, the respondent accepted
the said post without any demur whatsoever. He,
therefore, upon obtaining appointment in a lower
post could not have been permitted to turn round
and contend that he was entitled for a higher post
although not eligible therefor. A person cannot be
appointed unless he fulfils the eligibility criteria.
Physical fitness being an essential eligibility
criteria, the Superintendent of Police could not
have made any recommendation in violation of the
rules. Nothing has been shown before us that even
- 17 -
the petitioner came within the purview of any
provisions containing grant of relaxation of such
qualification. Whenever, a person invokes such a
provision, it would be for him to show that the
authority is vested with such a power."
(i) The Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that the
appointee, once having accepted the compassionate
appointment without any demur in a lower post cannot
turn around and contend that he would be entitled to a
higher post.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 18.03.2024 passed in
Application No.10874/2023 by the Tribunal is set aside and
the Application No.10874/2023 stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
KMS
CT:VP
