Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the' said Rules" for short) as unconstitutional.

7. On the other hand, Sri.Subramanya.R., learned Additional Advocate General would vehemently argue and contend that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but a concession that is shown by the Government for a family which loses its breadwinner to tide over the immediate crisis that engulfs such families. It is with this object the Rules are framed and any request for appointment on compassionate grounds will have to be strictly construed in terms of the Rules and not dehors the same and would submit the Rule that has stood the test of time cannot be held to be unconstitutional or ultravires the constitution merely because the petitioner is denied a concession and not a right.

The aforesaid enunciation of law with regard to compassionate appointment is reiterated by the Apex Court in line of judgments up to this date. Thus, the law with regard to compassionate appointment is by now too well settled that it is not a matter of right and not an alternate source of recruitment.

11. RULES GOVERNING COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT:

11.1. In the light of the question that has arisen for my consideration, the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 which governs the appointment on compassionate grounds to the Government servants in the State of Karnataka is required to be noticed and is extracted hereunder for the purpose of ready reference.

15. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION:

15.1. The legal exposition of the Apex Court and other High Courts with regard to identical provisions in several Rules including that of Rules of compassionate appointment are required to be noticed and are as follows:

15.2. AUTHORITIES RELIED ON BY THE PETITIONER:

(i) C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India reported in (1979) 4 SCC 260

6. At the first blush this rule is in defiance of Article 16. If a married man has a right, a married woman, other things being equal, stands on no worse footing. This misogynous posture is a hangover of the masculine culture of manacling the weaker sex forgetting how our struggle for national freedom was also a battle against woman's thraldom. Freedom is indivisible, so is Justice. That our founding faith enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 should have been tragically ignored vis-a-vis half of India's humanity viz.

(ii) I accordingly, strike down the word "unmarried" in Rule 2(1)(a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996.

(iii) In consequence whereof, I direct the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

(iv) The State Government on such reconsideration shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made in the course of the order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.