Allowed¶88

Smt Rohini D/O Basavaraj Magi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Feb 2025WP/101736/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

compassionate appointment; death in harness; part-time teacher; regularization in 2021; minor on date of death; attainment of majority within prescribed period; merger of posts; no vacancy for direct recruitment; certiorari; mandamus; Article 226; Article 227; Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench; WP No. 101736 of 2024; quashing of endorsement; reconsideration within three months.

What did the court decide?

Certiorari granted: endorsement dated 22.02.2024 vide Annexures-N and N1 and the order dated 22.08.2023 quashed; respondent-State directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds within three months from receipt of the order. ¶88

Smt Rohini D/O Basavaraj Magi Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶88

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, daughter of a part-time Teacher who was not a regular employee at the time of his death in harness (and whose service was regularized only in 2021), is entitled to consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds. +1 more

¶57

Court's answer

The writ petition is allowed: the endorsement dated 22.02.2024 (Annexures-N and N1) and the order dated 22.08.2023 are quashed, and the respondent-State is directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment within three months bearing in mind the observations in the order.

¶90

Ratio / Principle

The reason for rejection is erroneous because, for the first time, acceptance of regularization came about only in 2021, and it is only then that an appointment on compassionate grounds could be considered; by then the petitioner had attained majority.

¶81

Key takeaways

The plea based on merger of posts is untenable, as there are plethora of appointments made on compassionate grounds despite merger of departments or cadres.ratio¶84

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (M. Nagaprasanna J., 24-02-2025), WP No. 101736 of 2024 (S-RES) under Articles 226 and 227: allowed. The petitioner, daughter of a part-time Teacher in Sericulture Trade (JODC Department) appointed on 01.08.1993 who died in harness on 31.08.2010, sought compassionate appointment. The father's service was regularized only in 2021, after the Coordinate Bench's order in W.P.No.101769/2017 survived the State's Writ Appeal and SLP. The claim was rejected on the grounds that the petitioner was a minor on the date of death, did not attain majority within the prescribed period, and that merger of posts left no vacancy for direct recruitment. Held: the rejection was erroneous, since regularization was accepted for the first time only in 2021, when consideration for compassionate appointment could first arise and the petitioner had attained majority; and numerous compassionate appointments have been made despite merger of departments or cadres. The endorsement dated 22.02.2024 (Annexures-N and N1) and the order dated 22.08.2023 were quashed, with direction to reconsider the claim within three months.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 101736 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 101736 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. ROHINI D/O. BASAVARAJ MAGI, AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. UNEMPLOYED, C/O. D M JUTTAL, KALL ONI, POST. GUDUR, TQ. HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI PADMAJA S. TADAPATRI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE- 560001.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF VOCATION, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE- 560001.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, RODDHA ROAD, DHARWAD- 580008.

¶17

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 101736 of 2024

¶20

RODDA ROAD, DHARWAD- 580004.

¶21

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PRE-UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, D D P U OFFICE, DIST. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, BAGALKOTE- 587103.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO A. THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASE TO ISSUE IN THE NATURE CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED AT ANNEXURE-N AND N1 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 4 HEREIN BY ORDER NO. DPUE-EST10OTRS/229/2023-JOCDEPARTMENT OF DPUE DATED 22/02/2024 AND ORDER NO. C2/CA/AANE/ETRE/01/2023-24/1826 DATED 22/08/2023. B. THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE APPOINTMENT ORDER TO THIS PETITIONER ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND. C. ANY OTHER ORDER IN THE INTEREST OF THIS PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 101736 of 2024

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

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

¶30

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶31

following prayers:

¶32

“A. This Hon’ble court may be please to issue in the nature Certiorari by quashing the endorsement issued at Annexure-N and N1 issued by Respondent No.2 and 4 herein by Order No. DPUE-EST10OTRS/229/2023-JOC-DEPARTMENT OF DPUE dated 22/02/2024 and Order No. C2/CA/AANe/ETRe/01/2023-24/1826 dated 22/08/2023.

¶33

B. This Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of ‘Mandamus’ directing the Respondents to issue appointment order to this petitioner on compassionate ground.

¶34

C. Any other order in the interest of this petitioner in the interest of justice and equity as this Hon’ble court deems fit.”

¶35

The claim of the petitioner is for appointment

¶36

on compassionate grounds on account of the death of his

¶37

father, who dies in harness.

¶38

Heard Smt. Padmaja S. Tadapatri, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. Kirilata R. Patil, learned HCGP for respondents.

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 101736 of 2024

¶40

Facts in brief, germane are as follows:

¶41

On 01.08.1993, the father of the petitioner is

¶42

appointed as a part time Teacher in Sericulture Trade in JODC Department and served in the institution. With effect from 31.03.1995, the petitioner is transferred to work as

¶43

Teacher in another institution and dies while serving in that institution, in harness on 31.08.2010. The mother of the petitioner then approaches the respondent-State seeking appointment on compassionate ground on 07.11.2023 and makes continuous representations up to 05.01.2015. All of which were not considered on the solitary score that the petitioner’s father was not a regular employee and therefore, the appointment on

¶44

compassionate grounds would not be considered. It was told to her though not in writing after a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in identical cases, allows the petition in W.P.No.101769/2017 directing regularization of the

¶45

Teachers, who were similarly placed. A Writ Appeal was preferred by the State, which also comes to be dismissed.

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 101736 of 2024

¶47

A SLP was also preferred against the orders, also comes to be dismissed in the year 2021. Immediately after the dismissal of the SLP, the service of the father of the petitioner comes to be regularized in the year 2021. Therefore, the petitioner, by then, who had attained majority, registers a claim for compassionate grounds on the score that the father of the petitioner was now a regular employee. This is rejected on the ground that the petitioner, as on the date of death, was a minor and within one year, she had to attain the majority and therefore, the claim cannot be considered.

¶48

Learned counsel Smt. Padmaja S. Tadapatri appearing for petitioner would vehemently contend that no doubt, the petitioner was a minor as on the date of the death of the father. The mother had submitted the application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The mother’s application was not considered solely on the ground that the father of the petitioner was not a regular employee. He becomes a regular employee

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 101736 of 2024

¶50

only in 2021 and therefore, an application was preferred by the daughter, who had attained the age of 18 years by then. The claim was not considered. She had to approach this Court in W.P.No.101278/2022. This Court directed the consideration of the case of the petitioner by quashing the endorsement that had rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner then represents, the same order is passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner now on the ground that the daughter was a minor as on the date of death and has not attained majority within one year. Learned counsel would submit that the reasoning is erroneous there can be no any attributable on the petitioner in the case at hand.

¶51

The learned HCGP would refute the submission in contending that the right to compassionate appointment is under the Rules. Under the Rules, one has to attain the majority within two years. The petitioner has submitted the application only in 2021 and the date of death is 2010.

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 101736 of 2024

¶53

Therefore, the same cannot be considered in law. She would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶54

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶55

submissions of the learned counsel for parties and have perused the material on record.

¶56

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute.

¶57

The father of the petitioner, at the time of death, was a part time Teacher. Therefore, was not a regular employee. Several litigations generated after the death of the father of the petitioner and all of that lead to passing an order of regularization of the father of the petitioner as well in the year 2021. At the time of death, the present

¶58

petitioner was a minor. Since she was a minor, the mother had registered a claim for release of terminal benefits and seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. That was not considered on the ground that the father of the petitioner was not a regular employee. The next consideration comes about only in 2021. By then, two events happen. The father of the petitioner had become a

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 101736 of 2024

¶60

regular employee by the State passing an order of regularization in his favour and the other, the petitioner had attained the age of 18 years by then. Therefore, on the twin circumstances, another application comes to be filed seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. This comes to be rejected. Rejection of which is challenged in W.P.No.101278/2022. This Court allows the petition by the following order:

¶61

“ 3. It is the case of the petitioner that her father late Basavaraj Magi was working initially as part time teacher in Sericulture Department in the year 1993, under the Department of Pre-University Education, Dharwad and subsequently, he had rendered service with the SSS PreUniversity College, JODC Department, Shirol, Hungund taluk, Gadag for a period of 18 years. The petitioner's father is said to have died in harness on 31.08.2010. Thereafter the petitioner's mother Smt.Yallamma, had filed WP No.101769/2017 before this Court with the prayer to consider her husband's case for regularisation. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 11.10.2019 and respondents therein were directed to consider the case of the deceased Basavaraj Magi, the father of the petitioner herein as deemed regularisation of service and pay family pension and other pensionary benefits to the widow with interest at 12% per annum. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondents before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.100018/2020 and connected writ appeals and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.10881/2021. The petitioner who was a minor as on the date of death of her father, had subsequently filed an application in the year 2021 seeking compassionate appointment. Considering the same, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have issued impugned endorsement at Annexures-J and J1 dated 14.12.2021 and 28.12.2021, wherein they

¶62

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 101736 of 2024

¶64

have returned the application of the petitioner informing her to present the same before the Competent Authority. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶65

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after this Court had directed the respondents-State and its instrumentalities to consider the case of her father as deemed regularisation of service, the petitioner who had attained the age of majority, has filed application seeking compassionate appointment. The Authority concerned failed to consider the same on merit and have returned the same with a request to present the same before the Competent Authority.

¶66

5. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner's application has not been rejected and on the other hand, the said application has been returned with a request to present the same before the Competent Authority.

¶67

6. The material on record would got to show that the petitioner's father was initially appointed as temporary teacher and this Court in WP No.101769/2017 disposed of in the year 2019, which was filed by his widow, had directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner's father for deemed regularisation of service as permanent Lecturer and thereafter pay family pension to the widow. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the State and its Officers. Only after disposal of the SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2021, the petitioner appears to have made an application seeking compassionate appointment and by then, she had attained the age of majority. The respondents instead of considering the same on its merit, have returned the application to the petitioner with a direction to represent the same before the Competent Authority.

¶68

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father was initially serving the Department of Pre-University Education, Dharwad and thereafter with SSS Pre-University College, JODC Department, Shirol, Hungund taluk, Gadag district. Undisputedly this Court has directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner's father for deemed regularisation of services as permanent Lecturer. Under the circumstances, the respondent Nos.2

¶69

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 101736 of 2024

¶70

and 3 instead of returning the application filed seeking compassionate appointment, ought to have either considered the same on merits or forwarded the same to the Competent Authority, if the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are of the opinion that they are not the Competent Authority, but they could not have the said application to the petitioner.

¶71

8. Under the circumstances, the impugned endorsement /communication at Annexures-J and J1 dated 14.12.2021 and 28.12.2021 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

Writ petition is partly allowed.

¶74

The impugned endorsement/communication at Annexures-J and J1 dated 14.12.2021 and 28.12.2021 issued

¶75

by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are quashed and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner, seeking compassionate appointment or forward the same to the Competent Authority for consideration of the said application in accordance with law.

¶76

It is needless to state that the application of the petitioner which is filed in the year 2021, seeking compassionate appointment, is required to be considered as expeditiously as possible.”

¶77

9. The result of the direction to consider is, the

¶78

impugned order rejecting the claim on the score that the daughter was a minor as on the date of death and has not attained the majority within two years after the date of death inter alia . The other reason projected is, due to

¶79

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 101736 of 2024

¶80

merger of the posts, there is no vacancy available for direct recruitment, as appointment will have to be considered in the vacancies available for direct recruitment only.

¶81

The reason appears to be erroneous on two grounds. One being, for the first time, the acceptance of regularization comes about in the year 2021. It is only then an appointment on compassionate grounds can be considered. Therefore, if the period earlier to it is taken away also the right to claim consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds sprang only in the year 2021. By then, there is no impediment with regard to the petitioner being a minor or otherwise.

¶82

Insofar as the other ground is concerned, the learned counsel Smt. Padmaja S. Tadapatri would submit that several appointments on compassionate grounds have been made notwithstanding the said merger. In that light, I deem it appropriate to allow the petition by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for

¶83

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3675 WP No. 101736 of 2024

¶84

appointment on compassionate grounds bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order as also the fact that there are plethora of appointments made on compassionate grounds despite the merger of the

¶85

departments or the cadres, as the case would be.

¶86

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶87

ORDER

¶88

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶89

(ii) The endorsement dated 22.02.2024 vide Annexures-N and N1 and the order dated 22.08.2023 stand quashed.

¶90

(iii) The respondent-State is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

¶91

Sd/-

¶92

____________________

¶93

JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶94

Naa /CT-GTB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Smt Rohini D/O Basavaraj Magi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rohini D/O Basavaraj Magi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irappa S/O. Doddabasappa Awati Vs the Divisional Controller

M/S Bannur Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S B Dundigoudar Vs State of Karnataka

The Competent Authority Vs the Directorate of Enforcement

Narayan Krishna Marathe Vs the State of Government

Sri.Suresh Padati S/O Budwant Padati Vs the Divisional Controller