Karnataka High Court
Ms Rachel Goudellar vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 January, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.44974/2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Ms.RACHEL GOUDELLAR
D/O SRI VIJAYKUMAR GOUDELLAR
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
RESIDING AT SAI NAGARA ROAD
SIDDAGANGA NAGAR,
UNKAL, HUBLI-580 031. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.CHANDRA SHEKAR.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE, BY ITS SECRETARY,
M.S.BUILDINGS
VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR
(HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SCHEMES)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE), ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER
HUBLI-DHARWAD MAHANAGARA PALIKE
CHITTEGUPPI HOSPITAL,
HUBLI, KARNATAKA - 580 020.
2
4. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR
(HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SCHEMES)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE) ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 001
5. THE ASSISTANT CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER
HUBLI-DHARWAD MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HUBLI, KARNATAKA - 580 020.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.E.S.INDIRESH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
QUASH ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.01.2016 VIDE
ANNEXURE-L ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT,
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.E.S.Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents.
2. Heard Sri.Chandrashekar.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and 3 Sri.E.S.Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
3. Petitioner's mother Smt.R.C.Kabadagi was working as a Junior Health Assistant, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Hubli-Dharwad Mahanagara Palike and she expired on 19.10.2011 while in service. Petitioner's father submitted a representation on 20.12.2011 to second respondent and fifth respondent seeking appointment of petitioner on compassionate grounds. Said application came to be forwarded to the fourth respondent and subsequently petitioner submitted a representation on 19.02.2015 seeking for compassionate appointment enclosing therewith original records. On account of non-consideration of her representation, petitioner is said to have approached the second respondent for considering her representations who by impugned endorsement 4 dated 22.01.2016 (Annexure - 'L') rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner had not attained majority within one year from the date of death of deceased employee and thereafter application was not filed within one year seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and as such, assigning the said reason, application came to be rejected which is impugned in the present writ petition.
4. Sri.Chandrashekar.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that impugned order of rejection is erroneous and the very purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds, would get truncated if petitioner is not provided with employment on compassionate grounds since petitioner possess all requisite qualifications prescribed under the Compassionate Appointment Rules and as such, prays for quashing 5 of the endorsement dated 22.01.2016 (Annexure-'L') and also seeks for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate supports the impugned endorsement/ communication (Annexure - 'L') by relying upon Rule 5 of the Karnataka Compassionate Civil Services (Appointment and Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of records, it is noticed that undisputedly, mother of petitioner who was a permanent employee under the Respondent - State expired while in harness on 19.10.2011 at which point of time, petitioner herein was a minor and as such, her father had submitted an application on 20.12.2011 seeking for 6 appointment on compassionate grounds being granted to the petitioner. Subsequently on 19.02.2015, petitioner submitted a representation seeking for appointment on compassionate ground and also furnished requisite documents on 05.06.2015 as per Annexure - 'K.' After considering the said representation and documents, Respondent Authority, namely, second respondent by impugned endorsement has rejected the claim on the ground that petitioner did not attain the age of 18 years within one year from the date of the death of the Government servant and application was not filed within one year thereafter. Proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules would indicate that when a dependent of a deceased Government servant seeks appointment on compassionate grounds has to make an application within one year from the date of the death of Government servant and in case of a minor, he must have attained the age of eighteen years, within one 7 year from the date of the death of the Government servant and such application should be made within one year from the date of attaining majority and a reading of said Rule would make this position clear. Rule 5 reads 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 8 commencement of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1998].
As per the amended Rule, petitioner did not attain majority within one year from the date of death of her mother and as such, her application for being appointed on compassionate grounds came to be rejected. This Court and the Division bench has consistently taken a view that when bar contained under the Proviso to Rule 5 is attracted, State cannot be directed to consider the application for the appointment on compassionate grounds in the case of H.G.Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2009) 5 KLJ 152; Smt.Sundaramma and another Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (2007) 4 KLJ 110; Ismail P.Jalageri Vs. State of Karnataka and others (2011) 2 KLJ 189.9
Infact, the Constitutional validity to the said Rule came to be considered in the case of K.M.Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms reported in (2008) 2 KLJ 222 and validity of said Rule has been upheld.
7. In that view of the matter, contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted and no illegality can be discerned from the impugned endorsement. No grounds, rejected.
Learned Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.
SD/-
JUDGE dh