Karnataka High Court
Smt Gangamma vs Union Of India on 5 April, 2013
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D V Shylendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2013
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR
Writ Petition No. 11550 of 2012 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT GANGAMMA
W/O LATE MALLESHA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NO.30, 3RD CROSS
1ST MAIN ROAD,
JAYAMARUTHI NAGAR
NANDINI LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 096 ... PETITIONER
[By Sri M Narayana Reddy, Adv.]
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
AND FAMILY WELFARE
NATIONAL TUBERCULOSIS INSTITUTE
PARLIAMENT BHAVAN
NEW DELHI
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE DIRECTOR
NATIONAL TUBERCULOSIS INSTITUTE
DIRECTORATE GENERAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES,
AVALON, NO.8, BELLARY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 003 ... RESPONDENTS
[By Sri H Dayananda Saraswathi, Adv. - Absent]
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER /
ORDER DATED 26.05.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - H AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Writ petitioner is aggrieved that her efforts to seek compassionate appointment in the second respondent organization is not fruitful, though she was an eligible candidate for such appointment on the demise of her husband - late Mallesh - who was working in the services of the second respondent as a safaiwala and who had expired on 8-12-2008.
2. Petitioner though promptly filed an application, but that came to be rejected, as the committee appointed for selecting persons to be appointed on compassionate grounds did not recommend her case. Further efforts on the part of the petitioner to secure a contractual 3 appointment also not being fruitful, the present writ petition, seeking for the following relief:
a) Issued a writ or order in the nature of certiorari or direction to quash the letter / order dated 26.05.2009, in No.34-
1/97/2009/ EStt/447, issued by the 2nd respondent is produced at Annexure - 'H'.
b) Issue a writ or order in the nature of Mandamus and directing the respondent. No.2 to appoint the petitioner on Compassionate grounds in lieu of the death or her husband Mallesha.
c) Grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case along with by awarding the costs of this litigation in the interest of justice and equity.
3. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner by Sri M Narayana Reddy, that the petitioner had made application within the stipulated time and the committee even assuming had rejected her application for the year 2009 for want of vacancy, it should have been considered for the vacancies available in the subsequent two or three years and such has been consideration in respect of other 4 candidates, but not in respect of the petitioner and therefore petitioner has been discriminated.
4. Notice had been issued to the respondents. Respondents are represented by counsel and a detailed statement of objections has been filed. It is, inter alia, indicated that the committee considered the case of the petitioner along with four others and apart from the finding that there was no vacancy for the year 2009, the committee has also found that the petitioner's position was not very penurious or alarming warranting appointment on compassionate grounds, but she is better placed than the other candidates seeking for appointment on compassionate grounds and therefore resolved to reject her case.
5. In so far as the petitioner's case is concerned, the committee observed that she was 42 years of age and has three sons, two of them gainfully employed and all of them are staying together and that she is also staying as of now 5 in the quarters and her position being quite comfortable and for the year in question there was no vacancy for appointment on compassionate basis and therefore was of the opinion that she is not a deserving candidate for consideration to be appointed etc.
6. However, submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner's case should have been deferred to be considered for the next two years and could not have been closed or rejected.
7. The committee has bona fide examined the case of the petitioner and noticed that her position is not deserving for appointment on compassionate grounds. It cannot be said that a decision of this nature is either against the guidelines or against the provisions for appointment on compassionate grounds. If the committee thought it proper to offer a vacancy arising in future two more years to other deserving candidates cannot be said that they have committed any illegality warranting interference. 6 Appointment on compassionate grounds, as held by the Supreme Court and reiterated by this court, is not a matter of right. No scope for interference when bona fide decision is taken. It is for this reason, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *pjk