Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Sri. Anandappa K v

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2024/1873/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by the State challenging a Service Tribunal order granting compassionate appointment to a candidate who exceeded the 33-year age limit but fell within the new 55-year limit introduced by a 2021 amendment. The Court held that beneficial amendments apply to pending claims and dismissed the petition, while modifying the cost direction.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Implementation of Tribunal's order directed within 8 weeks under conditional cost clause.

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Anandappa K v — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44729-DB WP No. 1873 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 1873 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, M.S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶9

THE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶10

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

THE JOINT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DAVANGERE DISTRICT, DAVANGERE-577 534.

¶13

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DAVANGERE SOUTH REGION/ZONE, DAVANAGERE-577 534.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI S R KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:44729-DB WP No. 1873 of 2024

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI ANANDAPPA K V, S/O LATE VIRUPAKSHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, H/O LATE VINBODHA S SHIRAGAMBI, R/AT BHAVIHAL, NARAGANAHALLI (POST), DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 534.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI PRAKASH M PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) CALL FOR RECORDS (B) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH/ SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2023 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO-1004/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HONBLE KSAT ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and

¶25

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶28

The State Government and its officials are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the Service Tribunal’s order dated 17.07.2023 whereby Respondent’s Application No. 1004/2023 having been favoured, the Petitioners are directed to consider his case for

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44729-DB WP No. 1873 of 2024

¶30

compassionate appointment. The Tribunal has also levied

¶31

a cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to Respondent – candidate.

¶32

Learned AGA appearing for the Petitioners

¶33

seeks to falter Tribunal’s order on the sole ground that the age restriction for seeking appointment on compassionate ground was 33 years for the candidates of General Merit Quota in terms of KCS(General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 vide Circular dated 15.01.2009 and therefore, admittedly the Respondent being age barred, was not entitled to stake his candidature for such an appointment. He also passionately submits that no cost could have been levied

¶34

on the Petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent resists the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been founded. He notifies to the Court 2021 Amendment effected to KCS (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 whereby the age bar

¶35

has been re-fixed at 55 years, w.e.f. 09.04.2021. He

¶36

draws out attention to the fact that as on the date, his client’s Application was taken up for consideration on

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:44729-DB WP No. 1873 of 2024

¶39

21.09.2021, the amendment had already come into force.

¶40

In reply, learned AGA submits that the said amendment is prospective in operation.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶42

3.1 Respondent’s Application for compassionate appointment was filed on 21.04.2020, his spouse Smt. Vinoda having died in harness on 01.03.2020. As on the date of Application, he was 41 years 9 months & 14 days old. However, during the pendency of the Application, the subject Rules were amended and the age bar was extended upto 55 years. Amendments of the kind would apply to the pending claims since they are beneficial in nature and intent. They are retro-active if not retrospective. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly granted relief to the Respondent.

¶43

3.2 The above being said, we do not much justification for sustaining the direction for payment of

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:44729-DB WP No. 1873 of 2024

¶46

cost levied by the Tribunal. However, that again is conditional relaxation, as we mention in the operative portion of this Judgement.

¶47

In the above circumstances, this Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. However, the direction to pay costs is resolved subject to the condition that the Petitioners shall give effect to the impugned order of the Tribunal within 8 weeks failing which, the direction revives and petitioners shall be liable to pay additional cost in the likesum, which may be recovered from the erring officials personally, in accordance with law.

¶48

Now, no costs.

¶49

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶50

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶51

tsn*/Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

The State of Karnataka v. Sri. Anandappa K v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Sri. Anandappa K v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K S Prakash Vs the Union of India

Sri Raghu Vs Sri a P Ramesh

Sri. Mahesh Kumar Vs Inspector General of Registration

St Theresa Educational, Cultural and Social Development Society Vs M Babanna

Smt. M Rekha Vs the Union of India

Smt Saraswathi v Vs Sri Prakash