Karnataka High Court
Alwin Thomas vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2022
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.21533/2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
ALWIN THOMAS
S/O. ANTHONIDAS
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/A: NO.4/546/A,
KAMARASAR COLONY
SHOOLAGIRI KRISHNAGIRI
TAMILNADU - 635 117. ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM
NO.3, EMBACY ICON
INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE TOURISM
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
OFFICE :GROUND FLOOR, BMTC
YESHWANTHPUR, TTMC BUS STAND
YESHWANTHPUR CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 022.
REPT. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.V. RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 28/31.3.2022 VIDE
NO.KARAAPRAAANI/ADALITHA/108/2021-22/2634 AND
2
02/03.06.2022 VIDE NO.KARAAPRAAAANI /ADALITHA/
108/2022-23/533 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND K PASSED BY THE R-
2 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 28.02.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-H FOR
APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsements dated 28/31.3.2022 vide No.KARAAPRAAANI/ ADALITHA/108/2021-22/2634 and 02/03.06.2022 vide No.KARAAPRAAAANI /ADALITHA/ 108/2022-23/533 vide Annexures-J and K respectively and for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 28.02.2022 vide Annexure-H for appointment on compassionate ground.
2. Heard Smt Siri Rajashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.V. Ramesh Jois, learned AGA for the 1st respondent. Perused the writ petition papers. 3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner, Sri Anthonidas was working as Assistant Cook in the 2nd respondent- Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation Limited (for short 'the KSTDC') and died in harness on 10.12.2012. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was aged 13 years and on attaining majority, the petitioner is said to have submitted application on 09.11.2017 to the 2nd respondent praying to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The application of the petitioner was considered and under impugned endorsements, his case is rejected in terms of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules 1996 (for short 'the 1996 Rules').
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since the petitioner was a minor as on the date of death of his father, his case will have to be considered by the 2nd respondent, on petitioner attaining the age of majority. Further it is also contended that the 2nd 4 respondent-KSTDC has considered several cases, who were minors as on the date of their father's death, who made application seeking for appointment on compassionate ground subsequently. It is also contended that the impugned endorsements are issued without application of mind to the relevant rules and relevant facts. Thus the learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for quashing the impugned endorsements and for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.
5. The 2nd respondent-KSTDC in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground is governed by the 1996 Rules. Rule 3 of the 1996 Rules makes it clear that appointment on compassionate ground shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a matter of course. Rule 5 of the 1996 Rules as it stood as on the date of death of the petitioner's father reads as follows :-
5
["5. Application for appointment:-
Every dependent of a deceased Government Servant, seeking appointment under these rules shall make an application within one year from the date of death of the Government Servant, in such form, as may be notified by the Government, from time to time, to the Head of the Department under whom the deceased Government Servant was working.
[Provided that in case of a minor he must have attained the age of eighteen years within one year from the date of death of the Government servant and he must make an application within one year thereafter:]"
A reading of the above Rule makes it clear that dependent of a deceased government servant seeking appointment shall make an application within one year from the date of death of Government servant and in case of minor he must have attained the age of 18 years within two years from the date of death of government 6 servant and he must make an application within two years thereafter.
6. In the case on hand, petitioner was aged 13 years as on the date of death of his father, i.e., 10.12.2012, and that the petitioner is said to have attained the age of 18 years during 2017 and the petitioner is said to have submitted an application on 09.11.2017. The applic ation submitted by the petitioner is not in accordance with then existing Rule 5 of the 1996 Rules. The petitioner has not attained majority within one year from the date of death of his father and the application is not made for appointment on compassionate ground within one year thereafter in terms of then existed Rule 5 of 1996 Rules. The purpose and object of providing compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance or succour to the family of the deceased government servant/employee of the Board. In a decision K.M. PRAKASH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2008 (2) KLJ 222 (DB) it was contended that prescription of the period of limitation of 7 one year from the date of death of the employee within which the dependant has to attain majority and make an application seeking compassionate appointment within one year thereafter, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench of this Court while answering the said contention at paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 has held as follows :-
"6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the materials placed before us. Rule 5 of the Rules as amended by the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2000 which governs the case on hand provides as under :
"5. Application for appointment - Every dependant of a deceased Government servant, seeking appointment under these rules shall make an application within one year from the date of death of the Government servant, in such form, as may be notified by the Government, from time to time, to the Head of the Department under 8 whom the deceased Government servant was working:
Provided that in the case of a minor he must have attained the age of eighteen years within one year from the date of the death of the Government servant and he must make an application within one year thereafter :
Provided further that nothing in the first proviso shall apply to an application made by the dependent 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".
7. As can be seen from the first proviso the intention of the Rule Making Authority is that the right to claim compassionate appointment cannot be reserved in favour of a minor indefinitely until he attained majority. The Rule Making Authority in its wisdom has stipulated a period of one year from the death of the employee within which the minor should have attained majority and thereafter he should make an application for 9 appointment on compassionate grounds within a period of one year. Such a prescription cannot be regarded as arbitrary or illegal. Nor can it be characterized as one violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
8. It is well established by catena of decisions of the Apex Court that provision for appointment on compassionate grounds is made to tide over the sudden crisis caused by the death of a bread winner who leaves the family in penury without any means of livelihood and that such a provision is really in the nature of an exception to the general principle of equality in the matter of recruitment. It is also to be remembered that such a provision made by way of an exception to the General Rule cannot subsume the main principle. Therefore, there cannot be any reservation of the vacancy indefinitely till such time the minor attained majority after a lapse of several years. Therefore, the provision made prescribing the period of one year within which the applicant ought to have attained majority from the date of death of the 10 employee cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal. If we keep in mind the object and purpose of compassionate appointment which is intended to provide immediate relief to the family in distress and the whole concept of providing appointment on compassionate grounds which is evolved by way of an exception to the General Rules of Recruitment, the challenge made to the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules cannot be accepted. The respondents were justified in placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar."
7. For the reasons recorded above and following the principles laid down in the above decision, I am of the view, that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned endorsements.
Accordingly the writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG*