Karnataka High Court
Sri. K.M. Prakash S/O. Late M. ... vs The State Of Karnataka, Department Of ... on 29 May, 2007
Equivalent citations: ILR2007KAR3108, 2008(2)KARLJ222, 2007 LAB. I. C. (NOC) 757 (KAR.) = 2007 (5) AIR KAR R 111, 2007 (5) AIR KAR R 111
Bench: Chief Justice, B.S. Patil
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.08.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 41795/2004 dismissing the writ petition. The appellant filed the Writ Petition challenging the endorsement dated 14.07.2004 Annexure-C issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Raichur rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.
2. The father of the appellant late M. Shankarappa was working as Secretary in the Gram Panchayat at Gabbur Village in Devdurga Taluk of Raichur District. He died on 07.01.2001 while in service leaving behind his wife, a Son (the writ petitioner/ appellant herein) and two daughters. The mother of the appellant made an application vide Annexure-B on 08.06.2001 addressed to the Zilla Panchayat, Raichur requesting to appoint her son on compassionate grounds after he attained majority. She had stated in the said application that as she was not keeping good health she was not in a position to take up the job and her daughters' marriage was to be celebrated in the near future hence her two daughters Manjula and Mamatha were also not in a position to accept any job. At the time of death of Ms father, writ petitioner was a minor. His date of birth is 02.04.1986. He attained majority on 02.04.2004. After attaining majority, on 06.04.2004 the writ petitioner made an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The application filed came to be rejected by the endorsement impugned in the writ petition stating that as per Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules') as amended in 2000 the petitioner was not entitled for appointment Aggrieved by the said endorsement the petitioner filed the Writ Petition out of which the present writ appeal arises.
3. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that in the wake of the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules, the application filed by the writ petitioner beyond the period prescribed cannot be considered. It is further held that the mother of the writ petitioner and her daughters could have sought for appointment on compassionate grounds if the family was in penury and instead of seeking appointment for them a request was made to reserve the right in favour of the son who was to attain majority nearly after four years from the date of the death of the father, disclosed that it was not a case where the family was in a state of penury.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that prescription of the period of limitation of 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. He farther contends that the mother of the appellant being an illiterate lady suffering from ailment could not apply for appointment and the daughters who were about to be given in marriage were not in a position to look after the family of the deceased employee consisting of his widow and the minor son and it was in that background an application to reserve the post in favour of her minor son was made and therefore there was nothing illegal in the course adopted by the wife of the deceased employee. He further contends that what was required to be taken into consideration was the financial distress and crisis faced by the family and not the technical considerations like delay in filing the application which is consequential to the lapse of time in attaining majority by the appellant.
5. 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 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 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 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 appointment on compassionate grounds within a period of one year. Such a prescription cannot be regarded as arbitrary or illegal. Nor can it be characterised as one violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
6. 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 realty 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 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 Ors. and Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors. .
7. The fact that the mother of the appellant did not choose to seek employment for herself to bring the family out of the alleged penurious condition, nor the daughters of the deceased employee came forward to make any such request is also referred to by the learned Single Judge as a factor which would show that the family was not in an immediate crisis, as otherwise the opportunity for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds would have been immediately availed by the family.
8. In the light of the above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider that the observation made and the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge are in any manner vitiated in law warranting our interference. The learned Single Judge was right and justified in dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, this writ appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.