Smt Vaishali W/O Late Sanjay Halagekar Vs the Commissioner

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17694 WP No. 100511 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 100511 OF 2025 (S-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. VAISHALI W/O. LATE SANJAY HALAGEKAR, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. H.NO.2513,MIRAPUR GALLI, SHAHAPUR,BELAGAVI.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. P. G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, NEAR K. R. CIRCLE, BANGALURU-580001.

¶11

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶12

THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, DHARWAD 580008.

¶13

THE PRINCIPAL ARTS AND COMMERCE, RANI PARVATI DEVI COLLEGE, TILAKWADI,BELAGAVI 590006.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SMT. CHETANA BIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17694 WP No. 100511 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶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 CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 18-12-2023 IN ¸ÀASÉå:PÁ²E/¥ÁæPÀzsÁ/ 706/ £Áå¥Àæ/fEJ¸ï- -

¶19

5/2023-24/7027 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXUREG , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶24

following prayer:

¶25

a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement dated 18.12.2023 in ¸ÀASÉå:PÁ²E/¥ÁæPÀzsÁ/ 706/ £Áå¥Àæ/fEJ¸ï- 5/202324/7027 Issued by the 2^nd respondent vide Annexure-G in the interest of justice and equity.

¶26

b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application dated 30.10.2019 vide Annexure-C submitted by the petitioner seeking for compassionate appointment in the interest of justice and equity.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶28

The petitioner is the widow of one Sanjay Halagekar, who at the relevant point in time, was appointed as a part time

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17694 WP No. 100511 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

teacher in a Job Oriented Course on 30.06.1995. Subsequently the petitioner was asked to work as Second Division Assistant. The petitioner continued to work as Second Division Assistant in the third respondent institution and dies in harness on 15.03.2019. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner submits a representation seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 30.10.2019. The said representation did not merit consideration. Therefore, the petitioner was before this Court in Writ Petition No.105198/2021. The said writ petition comes to be disposed directing consideration of the representation, which leads to the impugned endorsement. The impugned endorsement of rejection of the claim of the petitioner is on two counts. One, the post that the petitioner held was a Group D post and for a Group D post, it is to remain permanently unaided in terms of a Government Notification of the year 2003.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that notwithstanding the said Notification upon which the impugned order relies on, the petitioner's husband, as a onetime measure, has been considered to be brought under the ambit of aid. At the time of death of the petitioner's husband, he was

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17694 WP No. 100511 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

working in an aided post as a second division assistant. The learned counsel submits that he is not a Group-D employee.

¶37

The learned HCGP would, however, refute the

¶38

submission again placing reliance upon the Notification of the year 2003 which bars considering the Group-D employees on and from 01.03.2001 to come under the aid. Therefore, would submit, the husband of the petitioner, if, is not an aided employee, the petitioner cannot claim appointment on compassionate grounds. She would further take this Court through the order that gives the right to the husband of the petitioner to be treated as a permanent employee, to submit that after the retirement or death of the incumbent who has been treated as an aided post, as a onetime measure, the post would revert back to become unaided permanently.

¶39

I have given my anxious consideration to submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the records.

¶40

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The husband of the petitioner was appointed as a job-oriented course

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17694 WP No. 100511 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

teacher on 30.06.1995 and has later worked as a second division assistant in the institution. The husband of the petitioner dies in harness on 15.03.2019. Immediately thereafter, a representation is submitted seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. This is turned down after an order passed by this Court by the following endorsement.

¶44

»A§gÀºÀ

¶45

«µÀAiÀÄ: ²æÃªÀÄw ªÉÊ±Á° ºÀ®UÉÃPÀgÀ EªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå gÁdå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ E°è zÁR°¹gÀÄªÀ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå: 105198/2021PÉÌ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20.06.2023gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ wÃ¦ð£À §UÉÎ.

¶46

G¯ÉèÃR: ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: PÁ²E/96/jC/2023-24/zsÁ«/£ÉÃ«-2 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19.09.2023.

¶47

¸ÀÆavÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ«AiÀÄ gÁtÂ ¥ÁªÀðw zÉÃ« PÀ¯Á ºÁUÀÆ ªÁtÂdå PÁ¯ÉÃf£À°è ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:15.03.2019gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄgÀt ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ ²æÃ ¸ÀAdAiÀiï ªÉÊ. ºÀ®UÉÃPÀgÀ, ¢éwÃAiÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ EªÀgÀ ¥Àwß vÀªÀÄUÉ C£ÀÄPÀA¥À DzsÁjvÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå: 105198/2021£ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj jmï CfðUÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ; 20.06.2023gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ wÃ¦ð£À°è ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ CªÀPÁ±À«zÀÝ°è PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹, «¯ÉÃ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶48

ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄUÉ w½¸ÀÄªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉzÀgÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É SÁ¸ÀV ¸ÀASÉå: Er/551/AiÀÄ¦¹/99/ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07.08.2003gÀ°è C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ PÁ¯ÉÃdÄUÀ¼À°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01.03.2001 gÀAzÀÄ SÁ°¬ÄzÀÝ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÉgÀªÁUÀÄªÀ J¯Áè ¨ÉÆÃzsÀPÉÃvÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÀÄ ±Á±ÀévÀªÁV ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀgÀ»vÀªÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«®èªÉAzÀÄ »A§gÀºÀ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

¶49

¥ÁæzÉÃ²PÀ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17694 WP No. 100511 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

The endorsement is on twin score that the

¶53

appointment of the husband of the petitioner was as a Group-D employee and the petitioner is not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds in view of the Rules of 2003. The institution in which the petitioner was working was admitted to grant-in-aid and while so admitting to grant-in-aid, the husband of the petitioner, who is also an employee, is brought within the ambit of grant for a limited purpose of closure of the issue of job-oriented course by the following order.

¶54

“ Shri Sanjay Y. Halgekar is absorbed as Second Division Assistant in scale of pay of Rs.11600-200-12000250-13000-300-14200-350-15600-400-17200-450-19000500-21000 in R.P.D. college of Arts and Commerce Belagavi vide Director of Collegiate Education Bangalore, order No.PÁ²E/127/SÁºÀÄªÀiÁ/2011-12/£ÉÃ¥Á«-2(¨sÁUÀ-3) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 31.08.2015. Under Special Scheme of Absorption of Services of JOC Teaching and Non-Teaching staff against Non-Teaching staff vacancies in private Aided First Grade Degree Colleges (copy pasted in S.R.). He has reported for duty on 11-09-2015.”

¶55

The Government order was bringing several cadres of job oriented course teachers within the ambit of grant as a onetime measure with a clear indication that, on the retirement or otherwise, the post getting vacant, would revert back to

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17694 WP No. 100511 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

becoming permanently unaided. It is on this condition the husband of the petitioner is also brought under the ambit of grant. The State, as could be gathered from the order, has granted the said benefit of bringing the husband of the petitioner and the like under the ambit of grant for the sole reason of giving quiteus to the issue of job-oriented course teaching.

¶59

The issue now is whether the petitioner would be entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds in the teeth of the aforesaid Government Order, in which the post held by the petitioner's husband would revert back to an unaided post. The Government Order did not spring in thin air, but it was in terms of the Rule that comes about in the year 2003, i.e. on 07.08.2003. The relevant Rule reads as follows:

¶60

:8. Grant-in-Aid.(1) All private educational institutions established or permitted to be established prior t the first day of June, 1987, and started functioning form the academic Year 1987-88 and onwards and also subjects/colleges established or permitted to be established with effect from first day of June 1987 shall be permanently ineligible for grant-in-aid.

¶61

(2) Vacant and unapproved posts of nonteaching staff as on 1.3.2001 shall be permanently unaided. Any vacancies in the non-teaching posts which as arisen after 1.3.2001 on account of retirement, resignation, removal, dismissal and death

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17694 WP No. 100511 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

etc., are to remain permanently unaided. Such vacancies which are unaided shall be filled by the management and salary and other allowances shall be paid from its own resources.

¶65

(3) Grant-in-aid cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

¶66

Any vacancies of non-teaching staff arising after 01.03.2001 on account of retirement, resignation, removal, dismissal and death, are to remain permanently unaided. Such vacancies which are unaided is to be filled up by the management and the State would have no role to play. If the Rule and the Government Order are read in juxtaposition, what would unmistakably emerge is that the disentitlement of the petitioner to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. Though compassionate appointment is to be granted to tide over the crisis that befalls upon the family due to the death of the sole breadwinner of the family, the appointment cannot be granted de-hors the Rules. The Rules are quoted hereinabove. Husband of the petitioner was brought under the ambit of grant as a onetime measure. The onetime measure having gone after the death of the husband, cannot mean that the wife would be

¶67