Smt.Veena B Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE SIMILAR NATURE QUASHING ORDER DATED 27.03.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED IN APPLICATION No. 4452/2022 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION No. 4452/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN; b) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE SIMILAR NATURE QUASHING ENDORSEMENT BEARING No. E8.A.Aa.178/2021-22/1197 DATED 25.07.2022 VIDE

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:41162-DB WP No. 35302 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ANNEXURE-A7 ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 24.08.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A2 FOR APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS AND APPOINT THE PETITIONER IN ANY CADRE AND SERVICE OF THE KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT.

¶33

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

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶37

The questions for consideration in this petition are [a] whether a 'married daughter' must be denied the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds and [b] whether such denial must be because the application is not by the daughter but by her mother. The questions as aforesaid are presented by the petitioner calling in question the order dated 27.03.2023 in Application No. 4452/2022 with the

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:41162-DB WP No. 35302 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal' ].

¶42

This Court, before adverting to the facts of the case, must refer to the reason that has prevailed with the Tribunal to reject the petitioner's application calling in question the decision of the third respondent - the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Department of Public Instructions, Tumakuru South District, Tumakuru [for short, 'the DDPI' ] to refuse appointment on compassionate grounds. The Tribunal has extensively quoted from the decision of the Apex Court in ' Secretary to Government, Department of Education [Primary] and Others v. Bheemesh alias Bheemappa '¹ to underscore that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a condition for service, and if the appointment on compassionate ground is made automatic upon the death of an employee in harness without any kind of

¶43

1 2021 SCC Online SC 1264

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:41162-DB WP No. 35302 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

scrutiny, the same could amount to treating such right as a vested right, when it cannot be so in law.

¶48

This Court must observe, even at this

¶49

stage, that these propositions are not germane to the facts of the present case, and the next exposition underscored by the Tribunal is that the Rule as on the date of death of the employee must prevail and that the application is not by the petitioner who seeks appointment. The Tribunal has opined that the Rules, as on the date of the death of the petitioner’s father, did not permit compassionate appointment to a ‘ married woman ’. The circumstances under which the petitioner's mother has applied for the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate grounds and the subsequent proceedings can be stated thus;

¶50

3.1 The petitioner's father, who was working as an Assistant Teacher at the Government Senior Primary School, Kadegowdanahalli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District, has died in harness on

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:41162-DB WP No. 35302 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

02.03.2018 and the petitioner's mother has

¶55

immediately applied for appointment of the petitioner

¶56

on compassionate grounds making no claim for herself. The petitioner's brother has sworn to an affidavit stating that, given his circumstances, the appointment on compassionate grounds could be extended to the petitioner.

¶57

3.2 The Block Education Officer from the

¶58

Department of Public Instruction has rejected this application by the Endorsement dated 17.09.2018. The petitioner has called in question such Endorsement dated 17.09.2018 with the Tribunal in Application No.3859/2019. The Tribunal has quashed this Endorsement calling upon the said officer to consider the application by a reasoned order.

¶59

3.3 This order has resulted in the

¶60

Endorsement dated 25.07.2022. The DDPI in issuing this Endorsement dated 25.07.2022 has once again

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:41162-DB WP No. 35302 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

reiterated that the petitioner, because she was married when her father died, would not be entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶65

Sri Yogesh V K, the learned counsel for

¶66

the petitioner, submits that [a] the Karnataka Civil Service [Appointment on Compassionate Grounds] Rules, 1996 [for short, 'the Rules, 1996' ] is amended vide Notification dated 09.04.2021 enabling even a ' married daughter' to apply for appointment on compassionate grounds, [b] the unamended Rules that precluded a ' married daughter' from applying for appointment on compassionate grounds is struck down as being unconstitutional, and [c] therefore, irrespective of the letter of the Rule that was in force as of the date of the demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner would be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. The learned counsel relies upon the following decisions of the Division Bench of this Court:

¶67

8 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:41162-DB WP No. 35302 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

[i] 'Smt A R Bhanumathi v. State of Karnataka and Others'²

¶71

[ii] Smt. Ratnamala v. State of Karnataka and Others'³

¶72

[iii] 'Smt. Latha H.R. v. State of Karnataka and Others'⁴ .

¶73

Sri V Shivareddy, the learned Additional

¶74

Government Advocate who accepts notice for the respondents, cannot dispute the proposition that with the quashing of the unamended Rules, 1996 insofar as it excluded a ' married daughter' , the Rules even as of the date of the demise of the petitioner's father enabled a ' married daughter' to apply for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate proposes to rely upon Rule 5 of the Rules, 1996 to contend that the petitioner has not applied for the appointment on compassionate grounds, the

¶75

2 W.P. No.15961/2022 disposed of on 23.08.2024

¶76

3 W.P. No.203192/2024 disposed of on 31.07.2025

¶77

4 W.P. No.20216/2024 disposed of on 31.07.2025

¶78

9 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:41162-DB WP No. 35302 of 2024

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

application is by her mother and therefore she cannot be entitled to appointment on compassionate

¶82

grounds.

¶83

In response, Sri Yogesh V relies upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in ' The State of Karnataka and Another v. Sri Mahaboob Patel'⁵ to contend that when similar grounds are urged on behalf of the State, this Court has rejected such contention holding that the application on behalf of a dependent must state in unequivocal and unambiguous terms that the application benefits the dependent and the family members.

¶84

This Court must opine that in the circumstances discussed, especially where the unamended Rules, 1996 insofar as it excluded ' married daughter' from being entitled to apply for appointment on compassionate grounds being quashed, the significance of the Rule as of the date of 5 W.P. No.202187/2023 disposed of on 25.07.2025

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:41162-DB WP No. 35302 of 2024

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

the date of the demise must recede in importance. As such, this Court concludes that the DDPI [ the third respondent ] could not have rejected the application on this ground. The next question is whether the petitioner must be denied appointment on compassionate grounds only because the petitioner’s mother has submitted the application.

¶89

This aspect must be examined in view of

¶90

the decision of this Court in the case of Sri Mahaboob Patel [ supra ] and Rule 5 of the Rules, 1996, which reads thus:

¶91

"5. Application for appointment :- Every dependent of a deceased Government Servant, seeking appointment under these rules shall make an application within one year from the date of death of the Government Servant, in such form, as may be notified by the Government, from time to time, to the Head of the Department under whom the deceased Government Servant was working.

¶92

11 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:41162-DB WP No. 35302 of 2024

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

Provided that in the case of a minor he must have attained the age of eighteen years within one year from the date of death of the Government Servant and he must make an application within one year thereafter.

¶96

Provided further that nothing in the first proviso shall apply to an application made by the dependent of a deceased Government Servant, after attaining majority and which was pending for consideration on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1998."

¶97

This Court must opine, on a bare perusal of this Rule, that what is stipulated is an application by every dependent who seeks appointment under the Rules and that the expression ' every dependent of a deceased Government Servant' cannot receive a narrow consideration to say that it must only be by that dependent for whom the appointment is sought.

¶98

Further, this Court opines that the application may be by a dependent as mentioned in

¶99

12 -

¶100

NC: 2025:KHC:41162-DB WP No. 35302 of 2024

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

Rule 2[1][a] of the Rules 1996 but there must be an unequivocal statement, as underscored by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sri Mahaboob Patel 's case [supra] , that the application is for the appointment of a particular dependent, and that such application must be considered subject to the priority under Rule 3[2] of the Rules, 1996.

¶103

As such, this Court must not only interfere with the Tribunal's impugned order but also the Endorsement dated 25.07.2022 directing the DDPI to consider the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate grounds within a timeframe subject to the petitioner otherwise satisfying being eligible for such appointment. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶104

ORDER

¶105

[a] The writ petition is allowed quashing the

¶106

Tribunal's order dated 27.03.2023 in Application No. 4452/2022 and directing

¶107

13 -

¶108

NC: 2025:KHC:41162-DB WP No. 35302 of 2024

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Department of Public Instructions [the third respondent] to consider the petitioner's application already filed for appointment on compassionate grounds subject to the petitioner being otherwise eligible.

¶111

[b] The Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Department of Public Instructions shall communicate the decision to the petitioner within three [3] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶112

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶113

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶114

AN/-

Smt.Veena B v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Veena B 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax , Vs M/S Altair Engineering Inc.

Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) Vs M/S. Kanti Sweets

B S Ashok Kumar Vs Union of India

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri Siddananjaiah

Smt. Ranganayaki N D Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Manjunath Tavane