Smt. Ranganayaki N D Vs the State of Karnataka

SMT. RANGANAYAKI N D D/O LATE SRI. DALINAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A BOMMENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE (TALUK) TUMKUR (DISTRICT) PIN NO. 572215

¶11

Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANI M A., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41224-DB WP No. 4817 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, MINI, V.V.TOWER, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶19

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERNARY SERVICE, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICES, TUMKUR - 572101.

¶20

VETERINARY MEDICAL OFFICER, VETERINARY DISPENSARY, DANDHNASHIVARA, TURUVEKERE TALUK

¶21

PIN NO. 572 227

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH ORDER DATED 07.11.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KSAT BENGALURU IN A.No-674/2015 (ANNEXURE-A); CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW A.No-674/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE KSAT BENGALURU.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:41224-DB WP No. 4817 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

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

¶33

The question for consideration is: whether this Court must intervene with the order dated 07.11.2023 in Application No.674/2015 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal' ]. The Tribunal's reason for rejection of the petitioner's application as against the State's stand that the petitioner will not be entitled for compassionate appointment is as follows:

¶34

"9. In view of the observation made by the Hon'ble High Court based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhanraj vs. Vikram Singh , this application does not survive for our determination and consideration. The application is itself is not maintainable, the question of considering the

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:41224-DB WP No. 4817 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

case of the applicant for appointment on the compassionate grounds does not arise."

¶39

The Tribunal, in addition, has also observed that compassionate appointment is a concession and therefore, cannot be claimed as a matter of right; the job aspirants on this ground need to satisfy the criteria laid down in the extant Rules/Schemes.

¶40

The facts relevant for the disposal of the petition are that the petitioner's mother [Mrs. Lalithamma], an employee with the office of Veterinary Medical Officer, Veterinary Dispensary, Dandinashivara Turuvekere Taluk, has died in harness on 27.01.2014. The petitioner [her only child and married on 23.09.2009], has applied on 16.06.2014 for compassionate appointment stating, amongst others, that she was estranged from her husband, that in terms of a resolution with the intervention of the Panchayath, she is living

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41224-DB WP No. 4817 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

separately and that she depended on her deceased mother.

¶44

The Assistant Director of Animal

¶45

Husbandry and Veterinary Service has rejected the application vide the order dated 29.10.2014. The petitioner has called in question such order with the Tribunal, and the petitioner's application with the Tribunal is dated 04.02.2015. The Tribunal has allowed the petitioner's application only on 22.07.2021 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment on merit. The respondents have carried the Tribunal's order dated 22.07.2021 before this Court in W.P. No.8843/2022. This Court has disposed of this petition on 15.02.2023 restoring the petitioner's application for reconsideration. The impugned decision is upon such reconsideration.

¶46

Mr. M. A. Subramani, the learned counsel

¶47

for the petitioner, submits that Rule 2 of the

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41224-DB WP No. 4817 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on

¶51

Compassionate Grounds) Rules 1996 [for short, 'the KCSR Rules' ] is amended vide Notification dated 09.04.2021 permitting even an unmarried daughter to apply successfully for appointment on compassionate grounds and that this Court, in a string of decisions has held that this Rule is prospective. The learned counsel places on record the following decisions while emphasizing that the Tribunal is extraneous in its reasons because it has relied upon the exposition by the Apex Court in

¶52

Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh¹ .

¶53

i. *Smt Ratnama*	*la Vs.*	*The State*	of
*Karnataka*	*and*	*Others*	in
*W.P.No.203192* *31.07.2025.*	*/2024*	decided	on
ii. *Smt.* *Latha*	*Vs.*	*The* *State*	of
*Karnataka*	*and*	*Others*	in
*W.P.No.20216/*	*2024*	decided	on
*31.07.2025.*

¶54

1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 724

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41224-DB WP No. 4817 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

iii. Smt. A. R. Bhanumathi Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.15961/2022 decided on 23.08.2024. iv. The State of Karnataka and Other Vs. Sri. Mahaboob Patel in W.P.No.202187/2023 decided on 25.07.2025.

¶58

Mr. Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional

¶59

Government Advocate who accepts notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of the factual matrix [ which are undisputed ], the reliance upon the different decisions that are mentioned above and the Tribunal's reasoning which is based on an exposition which will not be decisive for the present purposes. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits

¶60

that the Tribunal, in referring to the decision in Dhanraj's case [supra] , has only proposed to underscore that the amendment to Rule 2 of the KCSR Rules vide Notification dated 09.04.2021, even

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41224-DB WP No. 4817 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

according to the amendment, is applicable prospectively, and therefore, it cannot be any avail to the petitioner.

¶64

Mr. Vikas Rojipura also canvasses that,

¶65

independent of the amendment to Rule 2 of the KCSR Rules being prospective, this Court will have to decide on the petitioner's grievance in view of this Court’s decision in Smt. Latha H.R.'s case [supra] , holding that even the unamended Rules would not affect the rights of a ' married daughter' because the unamended Rules insofar as it excluded the ' married daughter' has been struck down as unconstitutional and such decision has become final.

¶66

At this stage, this Court must record the

¶67

reasoning by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt.

¶68

Latha H.R.'s case (supra) - the writ petition in W.P. No.20216/2024, which in its material part reads as under:

¶69

9 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:41224-DB WP No. 4817 of 2024

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

"6. Having considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal that the amendment had only prospective effect and therefore the application cannot be considered, cannot be accepted. The petitioner's application has been rejected only on the ground that she is a married daughter of the deceased government servant. It is not disputed that the provisions of the unamended Rules to the effect only an unmarried daughter could make an application stood struck down as unconstitutional and the said judgment has become final. Thereafter, the Rules have also been amended substituting the words "unmarried daughter" with the word "daughter".

¶73

The unamended KCSR Rules as regards

¶74

an unmarried daughter being struck down as unconstitutional, even as of the date of the demise of the petitioner's mother, permitted the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Tribunal has overlooked this material circumstance. As such, there must be an interference

¶75

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:41224-DB WP No. 4817 of 2024

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

with the Tribunal's order, but in directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate grounds. This Court also observes that the concerned respondent must examine the petitioner’s eligibility for such appointment as on the date of the application. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶78

ORDER

¶79

[a] The petition is allowed.

¶80

[b] The Tribunal's impugned order dated 07.11.2023 in Application No. 674/2015 and the Endorsement dated 23.10.2014 are quashed directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate grounds within three [3] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy

¶81

11 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:41224-DB WP No. 4817 of 2024

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

of this order based on the petitioner's eligibility otherwise.

¶85

[b] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the third respondent within 4 [four] weeks from the date of receipt of the application.

¶86

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶87

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶88

RB, AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Smt. Ranganayaki N D v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ranganayaki N D 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

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

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Manjunath Tavane

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Vijayakumar R