Allowed

Kumari Nagaveni D/O Mahantayya Matapati v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2022WP/100170/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that rejecting a compassionate appointment application because the applicant is the daughter of the second wife violates Article 16(2) of the Constitution. Following Supreme Court precedents, the Court quashed the rejection order and directed authorities to reconsider the application.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication dated 22.1.2019 was quashed. Respondents were directed to reconsider the application for compassionate appointment within three months.

Kumari Nagaveni D/O Mahantayya Matapati Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100170 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100170 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed
by SUJATASUBHASH
PAMMAR
SUJATASUBHASHPAMMAR Location: Highcourt ofKarnataka,Dharwad Bench,Dharwad
Date:
2022.11.23
11:00:53 -0800

¶10

KUMARI NAGAVENI D/O MAHANTAYYA MATAPATI AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. NIL. C/O. YALLAPPA Y KARAGANNAVAR, KENGERI ROAD, AMBEDKAR SCHOOL, BEHIND AT. MURUGOD, TQ. SAVADATTI DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE. 590001

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI UMESH C AINAPUR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KRISHNA JALABHAGHYA NIGAMA NIYAMITA ALAMATTI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-586201

¶15

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION (W.R.D.O) (JALASAMPATTU ABHIVRADDI ILAKHE) ANANDRAO, CIRCLE BENGALURU, PIN CODE. 560009

¶16

THE CHIEF ENGINEER KRISHNA JALABHAGHE NIYAMITA O AND M NARAYANPUR DIST. YADGIR, PIN CODE. 585201

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DIVISION, KBJNL NLBC,RODALBANDA TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR PIN CODE. 584127

¶18

¶19

WP No. 100170 of 2022

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF W.R.D.O., VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU (AMENDED V/C/O DTD:

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 & R4, SRI V S KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2 & R5)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIO OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 25/01/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS ANNEXUREG AND ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS, DIRECTING TO ISSUE APPOINTMENT ORDER ON THE BASIS OF COMPENSATION BACKGROUND APPOINTMENT FOR THE POST OF F.D.A TO THE PETITIONER. INTERIM PRAYER. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner’s father Sri Mahantayya Matapati who was appointed as Typist in the 4^th respondent office, died in harness on 09.06.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner, who is the daughter of the second wife of the deceased Sri.Mahantayya Matapati and the children of the first wife entered into a compromise in O.S. No.58/2007 and as per the terms of the settlement, the parties agreed that the petitioner was granted with the right to file an application for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the death of the deceased Sri Mahantayya Matapati. The petitioner submitted an application with the officer

¶26

¶27

WP No. 100170 of 2022

¶28

concerned who in turn forwarded the said application to the respondent No.2. The said application was rejected stating that the petitioner who is the daughter of the second wife of the deceased Sri Mahantayya Matapati is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Against which, the present petition is filed.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the daughter of second wife is not entitled for compassionate appointment is discriminatory and violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar and another vs. The Union of India and others¹ .

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 3 and 4 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.2 and 5 submit that the daughter of the second wife is not entitled for compassionate appointment under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment

¶31

1 2022 Live Law (SC) 205

¶32

¶33

WP No. 100170 of 2022

¶34

and Compassionate) Rules, 1996. Hence, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rightly rejected and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶35

I have examined the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶36

The only ground for rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner is that the daughter of the second wife is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. The issue whether the son/daughter of the second wife is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground was examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India –vs- V R Tripathi reported in (2019) 14 SCC 646 and also in the case of Mukesh Kumar & anr. –vs- the Union of India & ors reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205, wherein it is held that an appointment which has the force of law, must not discriminate on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 16(2), including that of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate and recognizing only the right of legitimate descendant.

¶37

¶38

WP No. 100170 of 2022

¶39

In view of the ratio enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the rejection of application submitted by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is held violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned communication dated 22.1.2019 issued by the 1^st respondent vide Annexure-G is hereby quashed.

¶42

iii) The respondents are hereby directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. The said exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶43

iv) The petitioner is at liberty to furnish the relevant documents with the respondents so as to consider his claim for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

RSH/BKM

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Kumari Nagaveni D/O Mahantayya Matapati v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Nagaveni D/O Mahantayya Matapati v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basavanagouda M Hiregoudar, Vs Under Secretary

Dyamappa S/O. Yallappa Pujar Vs the Assistant Commissioner

The Management of Nwkrtc Vs Mahammad Iqbal S/O.Mohammad

Best School of Nursing Vs the Registrar

Sri Veerarani Kittur Chennamma School of Nursing Vs the Registrar

K.L.S.School Nursing Vs the Registrar