Karnataka High Court
Dilip Kumarn S/O Late Mallikarjun vs The State Of Karntaka And Ors on 22 September, 2016
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
WP.No.202599/2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Dilip Kumar
S/o Late Mallikarjun
Age about 38 years
Occ: Unemployed,
Diploma Civil Engineer
R/o H.No. 19-1-207/A
Shivnagar South Bidar - 585 401
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. Jairaj K. Bukka, Adv.)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Through its Principal Secretary
To Government, M.S. Building
Vidhana Soudha, Vidhan Vedhi
Bengaluru - 560 001
2. The State of Karnataka
Through its Secretary
Department of Karnataka
State Khadi & Village Industries
Board, Khadi Bhavan, No.10,
Jesma Bhavan Road Bengaluru - 52
3. The Chief Executive Officer
Karnataka State Khadi &
2
Village Industries Board,
Khadi Bhavan, No.10
Jesma Bhavan Road
Bengaluru - 52
4. The District Officer
Karnataka State Khadi &
Village Industries Board
Bidar - 585 401
... RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA)
This Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue writ or certiorari,
quashing the impugned endorsement issued by the 3rd
respondent in file No.PERMANENT/CV/COMPASSIONATE
JOB/2015-16 dated 5th September 2015 vide Annexure-D b)
Issue of writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to
consider the application filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-B
dated 30th March 2015 seeking appointment of compassionate
grounds.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. A short question falls for consideration in this case as to whether impugned endorsement issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka State Khadi & Village Industries Board - respondent No.3 herein suffers from any illegality warranting interference of this Court.
2. By the endorsement under challenge, request made by petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground has 3 been dismissed holding that as on the date he submitted his application on 30.03.2015 seeking compassionate appointment he was age barred.
3. It is contended by petitioner that his father who was working as first division assistant under the 3rd respondent died in harness on 23.04.2014. Petitioner filed an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground before the 4th respondent on 30.03.2015 well within the period of limitation prescribed under the relevant rules providing for appointment on compassionate ground. It is further urged by him that relevant rules applicable have been amended as per Karnataka Civil Services (General recruitment) (68th Amendment) Rules, 2008 whereunder amendment has been introduced increasing the minimum age limit from 36 years to 38 years for candidate belonging to backward classes. It is urged by petitioner that he belongs to backward class and therefore, as on the date he filed his application on 30.03.2015 he was well within the age limit prescribed. However, without considering the same, impugned endorsement has been issued which is illegal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. On perusal of the 4 impugned endorsement Annexure-D, except saying that petitioner was overaged at the time when he filed application, nothing has been stated as to what was the age of petitioner; when he filed the application; why it had to be held that he was age barred; to what category be belonged are not forthcoming. It is not clear whether petitioner had claimed benefit of any reservation under backward class category. If really petitioner belonged to a reserved category, he has to produce necessary document before the authority, if he had not already produced.
5. Be that as it may, impugned endorsement does not assign proper reasons for rejecting the request. Therefore, the matter requires to be reconsidered. Petitioner is given two weeks time to produce relevant documents to show the category to which he belonged, whereupon the authority shall consider his case in the light of the amended rules. The authorities are also at liberty to examine whether the amended rules are applicable to the case of petitioner. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE VP