Disposed¶63

Sri. Prashantha L v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2025WP/13922/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; BWSSB employee's son; direction to consider representation dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure-G); Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 compliance and maintainability left open; hearing of respondent Nos. 6 and 7; 8-week time-bound direction; Articles 226 & 227 mandamus; writ petition disposed, contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondent No.4 to consider the representation dated 03.04.2025 vide Annexure-G, examine its accordance with the Rules and its maintainability, hear the petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 and 7, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within 8 weeks; all contentions kept open; pending IA(s), if any, disposed of accordingly. ¶63

Sri. Prashantha L Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether a mandamus should issue directing respondent No.4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure-G) for appointment on compassionate grounds. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

Respondent No.4 is directed to consider the representation dated 03.04.2025 vide Annexure-G and examine whether the application/representation submitted by the petitioner is in accordance with the Rules and regarding the maintainability of the application.

¶64

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.4 is to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after hearing both the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 6 and 7, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶67

Key takeaways

All the contentions of the parties are kept open.obiter¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Ashok S.Kinagi, J.), WP No. 13922 of 2025 (S-RES), order dated 16.12.2025: The petitioner, whose father - an employee of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board - died on 23.02.2025, sought a mandamus under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution directing respondent No.4 (Chief Administrative Officer and Secretary, BWSSB) to consider his representation dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure-G) for appointment on compassionate grounds, on which no order had been passed. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 contended that the representation was not in accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 and was not supported by their affidavit. Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 submitted that the application would be considered and an appropriate order passed. Disposing of the petition, the court directed respondent No.4 to consider the representation, examine whether it accords with the Rules and regarding its maintainability, hear the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 6 and 7, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within 8 weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; all contentions were kept open and pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:53990 WP No. 13922 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO.13922 OF 2025 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. PRASHANTHA L S/O LATE LOKESH S, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.16, 10^TH MAIN ROAD, 4^TH CROSS, SOUTH VALMIKI NAGAR, ANDARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 091

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. P. P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

¶12

SRI. ASHOKA T., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, (SERVICE RULES)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:53990 WP No. 13922 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

REP. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶21

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶22

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 1^ST FLOOR, KAVERI BHAVANA KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,

¶23

BENGALURU - 560 009

¶24

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND SECRETARY

¶25

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND

¶26

SEWERAGE BOARD

¶27

1^ST FLOOR, KAVERI BHAVANA KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009

¶28

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (ELECTRIC DESIGN & PUMPING STATION) -2, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 18^TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,

¶29

BENGALURU - 560 055

¶30

SMT. YASHODHA W/O LATE LOKESH S,

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53990 WP No. 13922 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.16, 10^TH MAIN ROAD, 4^TH CROSS, SOUTH VALMIKI NAGAR, ANDARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 091

¶34

SMT. SHWETHA L D/O LATE LOKESH S, W/O MANJUNATH G, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.20, ANUGRAHA, INDARANAGAR, GANGODANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE NORTH - 560 073

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. N. S. SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 & R7; SRI. B. S. SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE SIMILAR NATURE DIRECTING THE 4^TH RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 03.04.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND TO CONSIDER THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIONS AND APPOINT HIM ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS AND ETC

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:53990 WP No. 13922 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondent No.4-Authority to consider the representation dated 03.04.2025 vide Annexure-G, wherein the petitioner sought for an appointment on compassionate ground. Respondent No.4 has not passed any order on the said representation. Hence, this writ petition.

¶45

Heard the arguments of Sri. P.P.Hegde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7.

¶46

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

¶47

submits that, the father of the petitioner was working in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board. He passed away on 23.02.2025, leaving behind the petitioner, respondent Nos.6

¶48

Nos.6

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53990 WP No. 13922 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

and 7. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 03.04.2025 vide Annexure-G for appointment on compassionate ground. Respondent No.4 has not passed any order on the said representation. Hence, he prays to issue a direction to respondent No.4 to consider the representation and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶52

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 submits that, the representation submitted by the petitioner is not in accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (‘Rules’ for short) and the said representation is not supported with an affidavit of respondent Nos.6 and 7. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶53

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that, if reasonable time is granted, respondent Nos.3 to 5 would consider the application vide Annexure-G and also examine whether the application submitted by

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:53990 WP No. 13922 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

the petitioner is in accordance with Rules or not? and

¶58

would pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶59

Perused the records and considered the

¶60

submissions of the learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel for the parties.

¶61

The petitioner has submitted an application/ representation to respondent No.4 for the appointment on compassionate ground, and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 has submitted that respondent No.4 would consider the representation and would pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5, I proceed to pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i. The writ petition is disposed of ;

¶64

ii. Respondent No.4 is directed to consider the representation dated 03.04.2025 vide Annexure-G, and examine whether the application/representation submitted by the

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:53990 WP No. 13922 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

petitioner is in accordance with the Rules and also regarding the maintainability of the application, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, after hearing both the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.6 and 7, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶68

iii. All the contentions of the parties are kept open;

¶69

iv. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶70

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶71

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Sri. Prashantha L v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Prashantha L v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ugrappa Vs Sri Narayanappa

Sri Umesh a Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri. Shailesh Kumar Vs the Union of India

Suresh Babu M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ishappa Mayakar Vs the Vice Chanslar

Sri Chandra Naik N Vs the State of Karnataka