Sri Subramanya S/O Manjunath Hegde Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Subramanya S/O Manjunath Hegde Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ of certiorari: endorsement of respondent No.2 dated 08.04.2024 quashed. Writ of mandamus: respondent No.2 directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds as per Rule 6(7) inserted by the 2021 amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, and to pass suitable orders within four months; order declared non-precedential.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court notwithstanding the available alternate remedy of approaching the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal under Section 19, given the peculiar facts that the petitioner was a minor orphan whose applications were not considered. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court exercised its power to take up the matter despite there being an alternate efficacious remedy (Karnataka Administrative Tribunal under Section 19), considering the peculiar facts that the petitioner was a minor orphan whose applications were not considered; the alternative remedy contention of learned counsel and the learned AGA is negatived for the present case.

Ratio / Principle

The endorsement issued by respondent No.2 dated 08.04.2024 rejecting the petitioner's representation is hereby quashed.

Key takeaways

A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds as per Rule 6(7), inserted by the 2021 amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, and to pass suitable orders within four months from receipt of copy of the order.ratio¶63
The order is expressly declared not to act as a precedent for all cases; it was passed only considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.obiter¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment — Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Ground) Rules, 1996 — Rule 6(7) inserted by amendment of 31.05.2021 — Petitioner, aged 20 years, lost his mother, a primary school Teacher, who died in harness on 07.02.2020; father predeceased her. Applications made during minority and again on 12.01.2022 after attaining majority were returned on the ground that the petitioner had not attained majority within one year of the death. An earlier writ petition (WP No.105890/2023) was allowed with a direction to reconsider per the amended Rule 6(7); instead, respondent No.2 rejected the representation by endorsement No.C3/CA/AANE/DWIDASA/S.M.H./47/2022-23 dated 08.04.2024 invoking Rule 5 of the 1996 Rules (Annexure-K). Held: entertaining the petition despite the alternate remedy of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 in the peculiar circumstances (minor orphan, unconsidered applications, non-compliance with earlier order), the Court quashed the endorsement and directed respondent No.2 by mandamus to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds under Rule 6(7) and pass orders within four months. Order declared non-precedential, being confined to the peculiar facts.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 102213 OF 2025 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SUBRAMANYA S/O. MANJUNATH HEGDE, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. HANAJIBAIL, AT. POST KONDLI, TALUK: SIDDAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581355.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SAGAR R. HEGDE AND SRI. S.R. HEGDE, ADVOCATES)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, TO THE SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

THE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, RODDA ROAD, DHARWAD-580008.

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OFFICE, SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581401.

THE EDUCATION OFFICER, TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581355.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE

A. A WRIT OF CERTIORARI MAY PLEASE BE ISSUED QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025

HC-KAR

BEARING IT’S NO.C3/CA/AANE/DWIDASA/S.M.H./47/2022-23 DATED 08/04/2024 REJECTING THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-K TO THE WRIT PETITION.

B. A WRIT OF MANDAMUS MAY KINDLY BE ISSUED DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-E DATED 12/01/2022 AND ANNEXURE-F DATED 06/06/2022 AND TO PASS A SUITABLE ORDERS REGARDING EMPLOYMENT OF THE PETITIONERS ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND AND ETC.

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

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

The present petition is filed seeking to quash the rejection of the application for appointment on compassionate ground. It is the case of petitioner that his mother Smt.Yashoda Krishna Hegde while working as Teacher in primary school unfortunately died in harness on 07.02.2020. The father of petitioner predeceased his mother. These facts are not in dispute.

Petitioner filed an application seeking employment on compassionate ground to the respondent No.4 contending that he would attain the age of majority on 05.08.2021 and as such, he sought for employment after

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025

HC-KAR

attaining the age of majority. Respondent No.4, returned the representation of the petitioner with an endorsement stating that since the petitioner had not attained the age of majority within one year from the date of death of his mother, hence, he was not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground.

Thereafter, petitioner made another

representation seeking appointment on the basis of compassionate grounds on 12.01.2022 vide Annexure-E. The said representation though forwarded along with documents, it was again returned with an endorsement by respondent No.3 stating that since the petitioner had not attained the age of majority within one year from the date of death of his mother, he is not entitled.

It is the case of petitioner that he has completed his SSLC and PUC and also completed the Basic Computer Training and since he was not granted appointment on compassionate grounds. He filed Writ Petition

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025

HC-KAR

No.105890/2023. The said petition of the petitioner came to be allowed with a direction to respondents to consider the application of the petitioner in the light of the order made therein and the Rule 6(7) of the amendment Rules. Pursuant to this order, the respondent authorities rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner’s case would not come under provision of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Ground) Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules’) i.e., Annexure-K and hence, the petitioner is before this Court questioning the same.

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for petitioner that when the petitioner’s case was rejected by the respondent, he had preferred a writ petition as stated supra, which came to be allowed and a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner as per the amended Rules, which was inserted in 31.05.2021 Amendment, more specifically Sub-rule (7) of Rule 6 of the Rules. Therefore, he contends

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025

HC-KAR

that the application made by the petitioner, the

respondent ought to have considered as per the amended Rules rather than reverting to the earlier Rules of 1996 and as per the amended Rules, petitioner fairly fulfills the requirement and he deserves to be appointed on compassionate grounds. This aspect was considered by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in writ petition stated supra, but the authorities have given very same remark and rejected the case of the petitioner on the previous Rules of 1996.

Learned AGA representing the respondent/State contends that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner would have to approach the KAT for adjudicating his claim and grievance as the mother of the petitioner was a State Government employee. Therefore, he contends that this petition would not be maintainable and the matter be relegated to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for consideration in accordance with law.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025

HC-KAR

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned AGA for respondents.

The facts of the case are not disputed by the learned AGA representing the State including the death of mother and father of the petitioner, who predeceased the mother and the application that was made prior and the later application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds after the petitioner had attained the age of majority. In the earlier round of litigation before this Court, there was no objection raised with regard to the maintainability of the petition or to relegate to the alternative efficacious remedy. No doubt, it is true that the petitioner’s mother was a State Government employee

and the petitioner would squarely come within the submission made by the learned AGA that he would have to approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 for his redressal of the grievance. But what has

to be considered in the present peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is that, petitioner was minor as

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025

HC-KAR

on date of death of the Government employee and he made an application during his minority which was not considered. Subsequently, he made another application after attaining the age of majority. The peculiar fact of this case is the mother of the petitioner, who was a Government employee died in harness and the father of petitioner had predeceased the mother of petitioner. Therefore, petitioner being an orphan and having no avocation and support both financially and emotionally, made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The authorities considering all these aspects ought to have taken note of and considered the case of the petitioner not only on the Rules and Regulations existing and amended Rules, but also on the ground of sympathetic reasons. The same having not been done despite the earlier order passed in the writ petition. This Court is empowered to take up the matter despite their being an alternate efficacious remedy, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025

HC-KAR

the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned AGA with regard to the alternative remedy is negatived for the present case. Under the circumstances, since the learned AGA has not disputed all other facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to pass the following :

ORDER

(i) Petition is allowed.

(ii) The endorsement issued by respondent No.2 rejecting of the representation of the petitioner dated 08.04.2024 is hereby quashed.

(iii) The writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds as per Rule 6(7) which is inserted by virtue of amendment of 2021 to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996.

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025

HC-KAR

(iv) Respondent No.2 shall pass suitable orders by following the order of this Court within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

(v) It is made clear that the order passed herein today in this petition shall not act as a precedent for all cases. This order is passed considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12