Disposed

Savitha Yaddas Tamagunti v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Aug 2024WP/109551/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment in Group 'C' post after her father's death but was appointed to Group 'D'; her representation for reconsideration went unanswered. The court directed respondent no.2 to consider her representation within four months, clarifying it was not a positive direction to grant relief.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to consider petitioner's representation dated 20.04.2016 within four months, examining her claim under extant rules.

Savitha Yaddas Tamagunti Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12357 WP No. 109551 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.109551 OF 2016 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SAVITHA YADDAS TAMAGUNTI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O: ALNAVAR TALUK DHARWAD DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, DIRECTORATE MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, BANGALURU.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE CHIEF OFFICER, PATTANA PANCHAYAT ALNAVAR, DHARWAD DISTRICT.

¶16

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT IN “C” GROUP EMPLOYMENT VIDE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.04.2016 AT ANNEXURE – G AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12357 WP No. 109551 of 2016

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to respondent to consider petitioner’s representation dated 20.04.2016 at Annexure-G for appointment on compassionate ground in Group ‘C’ post instead of Group ‘D’ post to which petitioner has been appointed.

¶24

Sri Santosh B.Mane, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that on account of death of petitioner’s father on 12.01.2010, petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground. As on date of application, she had passed SSLC. Based on educational qualification, she would be entitled for consideration for appointment in Group ‘C’ post. But she was appointed in Group ‘D’ post as per order dated 28.08.2013 at Annexure-A. Petitioner accepted said order, but submitted representation for considering her claim for appointment in Group ‘C’ post. Said representation had remained without consideration, even after lapse of reasonable time. Therefore, she had approached this Court.

¶25

Learned HCGP for respondents no.1 and 2 sought to oppose petition. It was submitted, petitioner having accepted order of appointment in Group ‘D” post as per Annexure-A cannot later turn around and seek for appointment in Group ‘C’ post.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned HCGP for respondents no.1 & 2 and perused writ petition record.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12357 WP No. 109551 of 2016

¶29

From above, it is seen petitioner is claiming that she was

¶30

entitled for being considered for appointment in Group ‘C’ post as per her educational qualification but wrongly considered for Group ‘D’ post. Therefore, she had submitted a representation, which had remained without consideration. Taking note of Rule 4(4) of Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, prima facie, petitioner’s claim would require consideration. Since representation appears to have been pending without consideration, it would be appropriate to dispose of this petition by issuing necessary direction. Consequently, following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i) Petition is disposed of directing respondent no.2 to consider petitioner’s representation dated 20.04.2016 at Annexure-G, if not already considered earlier, within an outer limit of four months from date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;

¶33

(ii) It is clarified that direction issued to consider petitioner’s representation shall not be treated as a positive direction to grant relief sought for in representation but only to examine petitioner’s claim under extant Rules, in accordance with law, on own merits but within time stipulated.

¶34

CT-ASC/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

¶35

Savitha Yaddas Tamagunti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitha Yaddas Tamagunti v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri. Bhaskar S/O. Hanumanth Joglekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Savita W/O Shivanagouda Patil Vs Shri. Shivanangouda S/O Basagouda Patil

Smt. Shilpa W/O. Jagadish Hadapad Vs Sri. Jagadish S/O. Basappa Hadapad

Sri Honnursab S/O Rahimansab Kittu Vs Nazima D/O Rahimansab Kittur

Sri. Pruthviraj Chavan S/O Dr. Raju Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka

Anil S/O Pandurang Kurne Vs Hubli Elctricity Supply Company Limited