Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Kiran B U vs The Housing Commissioner on 14 March, 2023

                                         -1-
                                                   WP No. 21278 of 2021




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

                                       BEFORE

                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 21278 OF 2021 (S-RES)

             BETWEEN:

             1.    SRI. KIRAN. B. U.,
                   S/O. LATE. UMASHANKAR. B. N.,
                   AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
                   R/AT. NO.52, "ASHAKIRAN",
                   KAVERI NAGARA,
                   KATHRIGUPPE,
                   BENGALURU - 560 085.

                                                           ...PETITIONER
             (BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)

             AND:
Digitally
signed by
CHAYA S A    1.    THE HOUSING COMMISSIONER
Location:
High Court
of
                   KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
Karnataka          CAUVERY BHAVAN,
                   KEMPE GOWDA ROAD,
                   BENGALURU - 560 009.
                   REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

                                                         ...RESPONDENT
             (BY SMT. MANASA H. S., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

                    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
             THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
                                   -2-
                                              WP No. 21278 of 2021




RECORDS; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16.08.2021
AND 18.09.2021 I.E., ANNEXURE-H-H1 TO APPOINT HIM AS
FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS.

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, father of the petitioner was working as a 'Literate Assistant' in the respondent - Board and died while in service on 14.07.2020, leaving behind his wife, petitioner and one daughter. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has made a request to the respondent - Board to provide employment under compassionate grounds. Pursuant to the same, as per KHB (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Rules, 2005 dated 10.08.2005, the respondent - Board has appointed various persons for the post of First Division Assistant on compassionate grounds. However, the same was denied to the petitioner though the petitioner is a B.Com Graduate and having all the requisite qualifications to be appointed as FDA. -3- WP No. 21278 of 2021 However, as per the official memorandum dated .. petitioner was appointed as Second Division Assistant in the respondent - Board. Being not satisfied with the post awarded by the respondent - Board, the petitioner has made representations dated 16.08.2021 and 18.09.2021 (Annexures - H and H1).

3. I have heard Sri. Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Manasa H.S. apperanig for Sri. Manu K., learned counsel for the respondent-Board.

4. Sri. Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel contended that, the respondent - authorities have rejected the plea made by the petitioner on the ground of Rule 6(4) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 and he further contended that, the petitioner is equally qualified to be appointed for the post of First Division Assistant and accordingly, he placed reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of "THE DIRECTOR OF MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS Vs. H.N. GURUPRASAD AND ANOTHER" reported in ILR 2009 KAR 1462. Accordingly, he sought for consideration of the prayer made in the writ petition.

-4-

WP No. 21278 of 2021

5. Per contra, Smt. Manasa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - Board submitted that the petitioner has no legal right to claim a particular post under compassionate grounds and also she submitted that the law declared by this Court in H.N. GURUPRASAD's case (supra) is no longer a good law in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.10221/2014 (SRI. M. PADMANABHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER), disposed of on 11.03.2014.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the applicant while making the application to the respondent - Board has sought appointment under compassionate grounds claiming a particular post which is not permitted under law. However, as the representations made by the petitioner are pending consideration before the respondent

- Board, I am of the view that the respondent - Board is required to consider such representation.

7. In that view of the matter, the respondent - Board is directed to consider the representations dated 16.08.2021 and 18.09.2021 (Annexures - H and H1) referred to above, in -5- WP No. 21278 of 2021 accordance with law, within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE sac*