Karnataka High Court
Mahantamma D/O Amaragundappa Jiledar vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2023
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
WP No. 106425 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 106425 OF 2019 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
MAHANTAMMA D/O AMARAGUNDAPPA JILEDAR
AGED: 33 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED,
R/O: HERUR, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR R HIREMATH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPT BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
M.S. BUIDLING, BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
Location:
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DHARWAD
Date:
2023.03.21
18:12:13 -0700
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT,
NEW PUBLIC OFFICER, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE DEOPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT, BAGALKOT.
4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
HUNAGUND, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, PGA FOR RESPONDENTS)
-2-
WP No. 106425 of 2019
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CRTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
WRIT TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2010 IN APPLICATION
NO.3493/2004 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, THE COPY OF THE SAME HAS BEEN
PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, R.DEVDAS J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Principal Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.06.2010 passed in Application No.3493/2004 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengalore.
3. The petitioner being the daughter of Sri.Amaragundappa Jiledar who was working as Primary School Teacher and died in harness on 07.08.1996, filed an application on 25.07.2003 seeking appointment on -3- WP No. 106425 of 2019 compassionate grounds. The said application was rejected by an endorsement dated 18.09.2003 while stating that earlier the petitioner's mother had filed an application on 14.08.1996, immediately after the death of her husband, but she stated that her children were minors and therefore, after they attain majority they should be given appointment on compassionate ground. That application was rejected. The petitioner's mother gave one more representation on 27.07.2003 stating that her son had attained majority and therefore, he should be given an appointment. Both the applications having been rejected, the petitioner approached the KAT. The KAT, while noticing the provisions contained in Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, which was amended in terms of the Rules, 1998 held that in terms of first proviso to Rules, if the applicant was a minor, then he/she could file an application if the applicant had attained the age of 18 years within one year from the date of death of the government servant and the application was required to be filed within one year -4- WP No. 106425 of 2019 thereafter. Having noticed the said provision, the KAT held that respondents have not committed any error in issuing an endorsement declining to consider the application filed by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rules itself are harsh and they militate against the wisdom behind which the provisions are made for appointment on compassionate ground.
5. Learned Principal Government Advocate has drawn the attention of this court to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C.Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 and submits that issues stand squarely covered and therefore, no fault could be found either in the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent- authorities or the decision of the KAT.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance of a decision of the High Court of Judicature -5- WP No. 106425 of 2019 of Madras rendered by a learned Single Judge in the case of R.Sridevi vs. The Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Chennai and Others in W.P.No.9528/2008 dated 19.09.2011 and another decision of learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of Gomti Devi vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others reported in LiveLaw (AB)
479.
7. We have gone through the decisions cited by the learned counsels at the bar. In the considered opinion of this court, the issue stands squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C.Santosh (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the unamended provisions contained in Rule 5 and the amended provision which came into effect from 01.04.1999. Prior to amendment, which came into effect from 01.04.1999, the provisions enabled a minor who attains majority, to file an application within a period of one year from the date of attaining -6- WP No. 106425 of 2019 majority. However, with effect from 01.04.1999, the proviso was amended which reads as under:
"Provided that in the case of a minor, he must make an application within one year from the date of death of the government servant and he must have attained the age of eighteen years on the date of making the application:
Provided further that nothing in the first proviso shall apply to an application made by the dependant of a deceased government servant, after attaining majority and which was pending for consideration on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1998."
8. The second proviso is also added with effect from 01.04.1999 saving applications that were filed by the dependants of the deceased government servant in terms of the unamended provision.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions held that, in all those cases, when the -7- WP No. 106425 of 2019 government employee died, the applicants were minors and they had turned 18, well beyond one year of death of the government servant. It was noticed that the applicants had attained majority after gap of 2-6 years from the respective date of death of their parents and then they applied for appointment. By the time, the dependant children turned 18, the amended provisions became operational with effect from 01.04.1999. It was therefore held that their applications were belated and could not have been considered by the employer and on the other hand, the applications were required to be rejected at the threshold as being not in conformity with proviso to Rule 5. In fact, it is noticeable that the appellants before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were all given appointment and later the appointments were cancelled. Even under those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that since appointments were made contrary to the provisions, the subsequent cancellation of such appointment could not be faulted.
-8-WP No. 106425 of 2019
10. The two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner since we are required to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the Rules contained in the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1998.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C.Santhosh (supra) had also noticed that the provisions were not challenged by any of the appellants and therefore, courts were to render their verdict having regard to the relevant provisions and so long as those provisions are not challenged, the courts cannot consider an argument contrary to the applicable laws.
12. For the reasons stated above, we are satisfied that no infirmity can be found in the impugned endorsement dated 18.09.2003 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner herein and the judgment of the KAT in Application No.3493/2004. Before parting, this court should also notice the fact that decision of the KAT was -9- WP No. 106425 of 2019 rendered on 24.06.2010 and this writ petition is filed on 22.02.2019 after a lapse of 9 years. Therefore, even on the ground of delay and laches, the writ petition is required to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, all pending I.A's if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE MBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1