Karnataka High Court
A R Manjunatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 June, 2024
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:20350
WP No. 107 of 2014
C/W WP No. 14215 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 107 OF 2014 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 14215 OF 2013 (S-RES)
IN WP NO. 107/2014
BETWEEN:
A. R. MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE RAJU
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/O HOUE NO.280
ALANAHALLI VILLAGE(WARD NO.56)
MYSORE-570028.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RANGANATHA S JOIS .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
NARASIMHA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MURTHY
VANAMALA REP BY ITS SECRETARY
Location: DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
HIGH
COURT OF ENVIRONMENT & BIO SCIENCES
KARNATAKA M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE ADDL. PRINCIPAL
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
& MEMBER SECRETARY
KARNATAKA ZOO AUTHORITY
MYSORE-560001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:20350
WP No. 107 of 2014
C/W WP No. 14215 of 2013
3. CHAMARAJENDRA ZOO, MYSORE
REP BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MYSORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GOPALA KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SMT. M.P. GEETHADEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE
PETITIONER FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
UNDER THE KARNATAKA SERVICES OF APPOINTMENT
ON K.C.S. (APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE
GROUNDS) RULES 1996 AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO
TIME AND ISSUE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT
COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS, TO THE PETITIONER
FORTHWITH WITHOUT FURTHER LOSS OF TIME AND
EXTEND ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS
INCLUDING MONETARY BENEFITS.
IN WP NO. 14215/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI HARISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
S/O LATE K.NAGARAJ,
R/AT #89/1, 3RD CROSS,
KURUBARA HALLI,
SIDDARATHANAGAR,
MYSORE-560 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RANGANATHA S JOIS .,ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:20350
WP No. 107 of 2014
C/W WP No. 14215 of 2013
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
ENVIRONMENT &
BIO SCIENCES, M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE ADDL PRINCIPAL CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
& MEMBER SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA ZOO AUTHORITY,
MYSORE - 580 001.
3. CHAMARAJENDRA ZOO
MYSORE,
REPRESENTED BY THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
MYSORE - 580 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GOPALA KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1;
SMT. M.P. GEETHADEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER BEARING NO. APAJEE/07/FPC/2011 DATED
5.8.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, PERUSE THE SAME AND QUASH THE
SAID ORDER AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14,16(1)
& 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, IN SO FAR AS
REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR COMPASSIONATE
APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:20350
WP No. 107 of 2014
C/W WP No. 14215 of 2013
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The question for consideration in these petitions is whether this Court must direct the Chamarajendra Zoo, Mysuru [the third respondent] to appoint the petitioners on compassionate grounds. It is undisputed that Sri K Nagaraju and Sri Raju died on 16.07.2008 and 10.11.2012 respectively. The petitioner in W.P. No.14215/2013 claims under Sri K Nagaraju, and the petitioner in W.P. No.107/2014 claims under Sri Raju.
2. The petitioners have indeed filed their applications for appointment on compassionate grounds within one year of the demise, but these applications are rejected by the third respondent by separate and respective Endorsements dated 05.08.2011 and 08.04.2014. These Endorsements read that the request for appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be considered as the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:20350 WP No. 107 of 2014 C/W WP No. 14215 of 2013 relevant C & R Rules are not approved by the Government. The petitioner in W.P. No.14215/2013 has produced the Endorsement dated 05.08.2011, but the Endorsement dated 08.04.2014 is produced by the Zoo Authority and not by the petitioner.
3. Sri Ranganatha Jois, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the Zoo Authority could not have issued the Endorsement dated 05.08.2011 because it had earlier, on 20.11.2008 as per Annexure-A, sought for consent of the State Government to appoint the petitioners on compassionate grounds and that though the Zoo Authority did not have its own Cadre and Recruitment Rules [C and R Rules] until 2019, it was nevertheless under the Department of Forests from the year 1972 and as such the compassionate appointment Rules applicable to the State Government Employees would apply. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:20350 WP No. 107 of 2014 C/W WP No. 14215 of 2013
4. The merits of these contentions are considered in the light of the following as emphasized by Smt. M P Geethadevi, the learned counsel for the Zoo Authority.
[a] The Zoo Authority had its own Service Manual, and this Service Manual was in vogue until separate C and R Rules are approved in the year 2019. The Zoo Authority until the present C and R Rules are approved did not have a scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, and in fact, the Service Manual only enabled the Zoo Authorities to offer employment on contract to a family member of the deceased. [b] This scheme, as part of the Service Manual, was to ensure that financial difficulties of the family members are taken care of and there is no right to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. In accordance with this scheme under the aforesaid manual, the employment -7- NC: 2024:KHC:20350 WP No. 107 of 2014 C/W WP No. 14215 of 2013 on contract was offered to both the petitioners. If the petitioner in W.P. No.14215/2013 accepted such offer only to be in employment for two years, the other petitioner in W.P. No.107/2014 did not even accept the offer. The proposition that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be insisted as a right, especially in the absence of relevant Rules, cannot be disputed. This Court, with the Service Manual in force, cannot opine that only because the Zoo Authority was under
administrative control of the Department of Forest, the compassionate appointment rules applicable to the State Government employees would apply.
5. Crucially, the petitioner in W.P. No.14215/2013 does not dispute [though he contends that he secured a copy of the Endorsement dated 05.08.2011 under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005] that he had a copy of this Endorsement in the month of February 2012 and this -8- NC: 2024:KHC:20350 WP No. 107 of 2014 C/W WP No. 14215 of 2013 petition is filed only in the month of March 2013, a year later. The petitioner in W.P. No.107/2014 does not even refer to the Endorsement dated 08.04.2014. This Court must observe from the afore two circumstances highlighted by Smt. M P Geethadevi underscores the efforts to secure employment as a matter of right when it is not available, and the delay and conduct as aforesaid also disentitle the petitioners to any direction.
Therefore, the petitions are rejected. Consequentially, all the pending applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-