Saroja W/O Mallikarjun Morabad Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Saroja W/O Mallikarjun Morabad Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed without any direction for compassionate appointment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners have made out a case for interference with the rejection of the compassionate appointment, particularly in the absence of any material showing severance of marital status between the deceased employee and his wife?

Court's answer

Compassionate appointment in favour of a sibling can be considered only if the scheme permits such consideration and if it is established that the spouse is not available or there is a legal severance of marital relationship.

Ratio / Principle

On the record before the Court, no material whatsoever was placed to show any severance of marital status between the deceased employee and his wife (who is alive); in the absence of such material the petitioners failed to satisfy the basic eligibility condition.

Key takeaways

Mere consent or no objection by the wife, in the absence of proof of severance of marital relationship, does not ipso facto confer a right on the brother of the deceased for compassionate appointment.ratio¶56
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession governed strictly by the terms of the applicable scheme.ratio¶57
The foundational requirement for considering a sibling, in the presence of a surviving spouse, is proof of severance of marital status or non-availability of marital status.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment — sibling claim rejected where deceased teacher-employee is survived by his wife and no proof of severance of marital status exists; the wife's consent/no-objection does not ipso facto entitle the deceased's brother to appointment; compassionate appointment is a concession strictly governed by the scheme, not a vested right; foundational requirement for a sibling in the presence of a surviving spouse is proof of severance or non-availability of marital status. Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the rejection endorsed by respondent No.3 (KREIS) dismissed; no arbitrariness or illegality found warranting interference. (WP No. 109494 of 2025 (S-RES), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, K.S. Hemalekha J., 06.01.2026.)

1 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:48 WP No. 109494 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 109494 OF 2025 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SAROJA W/O. MALLIKARJUN MORABAD AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. #412/93, RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR, GADAG-582101.

VINAY S/O. MALLIKARJUN MORABAD AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. #412/93, RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR, GADAG-582101.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. GIRISH V.BHAT, ADVOCATE)

MANJANNA E

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.09 10:48:50 +0530

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 6^TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ROOM NO. 229, VIKAS SOUDHA, 2^ND FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:48 WP No. 109494 of 2025

HC-KAR

KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, 6^TH FLOOR, CUNNINGHANM ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

THE PRINCIPAL DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL (SC-805), MUDARAGI, DIST: GADAG.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR A DIRECTION OR AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED REPLY ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.REIS/EST/DEB/8/2023 - ADMN (E:68700) DATED 04.09.2024 REJECTED THE CLAIM FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT TO THE PETITIONER NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:48 WP No. 109494 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

The petitioners have called in question the endorsement/order issued by the respondent-authorities rejecting the request for compassionate appointment in favour of petitioner No.2, the younger brother of the deceased employee, and seeking a consequential direction to grant compassionate appointment.

Brief facts:

The deceased employee, son of petitioner No.1 and elder brother of petitioner No.2, was working as a teacher under the respondent No.4-institution and died while in service. After his demise, petitioner No.1 submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment in favour of petitioner No.2. The said request came to be rejected by the competent authority primarily on the ground that the

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:48 WP No. 109494 of 2025

HC-KAR

deceased employee was married and that his wife was alive. Aggrieved by the rejection, the present writ petition is filed.

Contention of the petitioner:

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the rejection of the request for compassionate appointment is arbitrary and contrary to the object of the scheme. Petitioner No.2 is a dependent family member and is otherwise qualified to be considered for appointment. The wife of the deceased employee had given her consent-no objection for appointment of petitioner No.2. The authorities failed to consider the financial hardship of the family and adopted hypothetical approach and hence the impugned rejection warrants interference by this Court.

Contention of the respondents:

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned action and contends that the compassionate appointment is governed strictly by the scheme in force and

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:48 WP No. 109494 of 2025

HC-KAR

the deceased employee was married and his wife is alive.

There is no material to demonstrate that the marital relationship between the deceased and his wife had ceased or that they were living separately. In the absence of such material, the claim of the younger brother cannot be entertained under the scheme and the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

Reasoning:

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides,

the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioners have made out a case

for interference with the rejection of the compassionate appointment, particularly in the absence of any material showing severance of marital status between the deceased employee and his wife?”

Upon consideration of the rival submission and

perusal of the material on record, the undisputed fact is that the deceased employee was married and his wife is

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:48 WP No. 109494 of 2025

HC-KAR

alive. The claim of compassionate appointment in favour of a sibling can be considered only if the scheme permits such consideration and if it is established that the spouse is not available or there is a legal severance of marital relationship. In the present case, no material whatsoever is placed on record to show that there was any severance of marital status between the deceased employee and his wife.

Mere consent or no objection by the wife, in the absence of proof of severance of marital relationship, does not ipso facto confer a right on the brother of the deceased for compassionate appointment.

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession governed strictly by the terms of the applicable scheme. The foundational requirement for considering a sibling, in the presence of surviving spouse, is a proof of severance of marital status or non-availability of marital status. In the absence of any such material, the petitioners have failed to satisfy the basic eligibility

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:48 WP No. 109494 of 2025

HC-KAR

condition. This Court finds no arbitrariness or illegality in the action of the respondent-authorities warranting any interference. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and the writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

AT Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14