Allowed¶61

Bhagirathi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2025WP/20954/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; married daughter of deceased employee; Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996; Rule 2(1)(a)(i); Rule 2(1)(b); Rule 3(2)(i)(c); amendment dated 09.04.2021 striking down 'unmarried'; Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik; ILR 2021 KAR 5256; W.P.No.1321/2024 Division Bench; Articles 14 and 15; Article 226; quashment of endorsement dated 25.05.2022; reconsideration within three months; Lab Technician died 07.04.2017; YDNM School Tholalu; Hassan; NC: 2025:KHC:37559.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; endorsement dated 25.05.2022 (Annexure-B) quashed; respondents directed to consider petitioner No.2's application for compassionate appointment in accordance with law within three months. ¶61

Bhagirathi Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned endorsements rejecting petitioner No.2's request for appointment on compassionate grounds — made on the ground that, as on the date of the employee's death, there was no provision for appointing a married daughter — are liable to be quashed.

¶37

Court's answer

In view of the decision in Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik (ILR 2021 KAR 5256), the amendment dated 09.04.2021 to the 1996 Rules, and the Division Bench decision in W.P.No.1321/2024, the endorsement issued by the respondents rejecting the compassionate appointment claim is liable to be quashed; the impugned endorsement dated 25.05.2022 (Annexure-B) is quashed.

¶61

Ratio / Principle

The respondents are directed to consider the application submitted by petitioner No.2 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.), in W.P. No. 20954 of 2023 (S-RES) under Article 226, allowed a petition by the family of a Lab Technician who died in service on 07.04.2017, challenging the rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment to petitioner No.2, a married daughter of the deceased, on the ground that no provision existed for married daughters as on the date of death. Relying on Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 2021 KAR 5256 (where the word 'unmarried' in Rule 2(1)(a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 was struck down as violative of Articles 14 and 15), the amendment to the 1996 Rules dated 09.04.2021, and a Division Bench decision in W.P.No.1321/2024 (holding that a struck-down provision cannot be relied on to reject an application on the plea that the amendment is prospective), the Court quashed the endorsement dated 25.05.2022 (Annexure-B) and directed the respondents to consider petitioner No.2's application in accordance with law within three months.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:37559 WP No. 20954 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 20954 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BHAGIRATHI W/O LATE MOTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A NAVILLA HALLI VILLAGE AREHALLI HOBLI, BELURU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.

¶10

SHRUTHI AM W/O MANNJUNATH D/O MOTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O # 650/21, 15TH CROSS SOMESWARA TEMPEL STREET BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU SOUTH-560076.

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶12

SHARATH AM S/O LATE MOTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/A NAVILLA HALLI VILLAGE AREHALLI HOBLI, BELURU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.

¶13

SWATHI AM

¶14

D/O LATE MOTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/A NAVILLA HALLI VILLAGE AREHALLI HOBLI, BELURU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. NAGENDRA NAIK R., ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:37559 WP No. 20954 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGLAURU-560001 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶21

HEAD MASTER YDNM SCHOOL, THOLALU BELURU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.

¶22

BLOCK EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DEPARTMENT PUBLIC EDUCATION BELURU TALUK, BELURU HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.

¶23

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS OFFICE OF THE DDPI # 2433 8F7, DC OFFICE BM ROAD, RANGOLLI HALLA HASSAN-573201.

¶24

GRAMA BHARATI VIDYA SAMASTHE (R) THOLALU POST BELURU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573115 REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶25

POSHAKARU MATHU SHIKSHAKARA SANGHA (R) S BIDARE, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DIST-577146 REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶26

BLOCK EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DEPARTMENT PUBLIC EDUCATION

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:37559 WP No. 20954 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

BIRURU, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTIRCT-577548.

¶31

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS OFFICE OF THE DDPI BELUR ROAD, CHIKAMAGALUR CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SIDHARTH BABU RAO., AGA FOR R1, R3, R4, R7 & R8: R2, R5 & R6 ARE SERVED)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 18/04/2022 ISSUED BY THE R1 BEARING NO. C8(6) SHA SHI AA.NU.AA.NE.ANU/92/2021-22 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ENDORSEMENT DATED 25/05/2022 PASSED BY THE R8 BEARING NO. G1/SAA SHI EE/ANU PRAU.SHAALE/A.AA.NE/72/2021-22 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the communication dated 18.04.2022 vide Annexure-A and the endorsement dated 25.05.2022 vide Annexure-B, whereby the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected.

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37559 WP No. 20954 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The case of the petitioners is that, the father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, who was working as a Lab Technician died on 07.04.2017, while in service. Immediately thereafter, his wife filed an application on 03.04.2018 vide Annexure-D, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds to her son Sharath. Thereafter, Sharath, the son of the deceased employee has given an undertaking that he had no objection to give appointment to petitioner ** No.2 , who is the daughter of the deceased employee. The said application has been rejected only on the ground that, as on the date of death of the employee, there was no provision for giving an appointment to the married daughter.

¶41

This issue has been considered by this Court in the case of BHUVANESHWARI V.PURANIK vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in reported in ILR 2021 KAR.5256. The operative portion of the order is extracted below:

¶42

**Corrected vide Chamber order dated: 27.10.2025

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37559 WP No. 20954 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

“(i) I allow the writ petition and hold that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of expression ‘family’ in Rule 2(1)(a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 is illegal and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

¶46

(ii) I accordingly, strike down the word “unmarried” in Rule 2(1)(a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996.

¶47

(iii) In consequence whereof, I direct the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶48

(iv) The State Government on such reconsideration shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made in the course of the order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.”

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:37559 WP No. 20954 of 2023

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

4. Thereafter, the Compassionate Appointment

¶52

Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘1996 Rules’) has been amended on 09.04.2021, striking down the word ‘unmarried’ in Rule 2(1)(a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c).

¶53

This issue has also been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1321/2024. The relevant paragraph is extracted below:

¶54

“7. In view of the said factual situation, we are of the opinion that the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the amendment dated 09.04.2021 is only prospective is not proper. We notice that the offending provision had been struck down by this Court in Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik, supra. If that be so, the contention that the amendment dated 09.04.2021 is prospective make no difference to the situation since the provision which is struck down cannot be relied on by the respondents to reject the application.”

¶55

In view of the above, the endorsement issued by

¶56

the respondents is liable to be quashed.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:37559 WP No. 20954 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶61

(i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 25.05.2022, vide Annexure-B is quashed. (iii) The respondents are directed to consider the application submitted by the* petitioner No.2 , in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶62

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶63

¶64

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 51

¶65

*Corrected vide Chamber order dated: 27.09.2025

Bhagirathi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagirathi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nandish Kumar S a Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Mahadeva Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Jagadesha Vs the Managing Director

Shri K Ramamurthy, Vs the State of Karnataka

Maria Magadelin Das Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Vijaya Vs the Under Secretary