Smt Pushpavathi C Vs State of Karnataka

SMT. PUSHPAVATHI C W/O LATE SRI. KRISHNA NAIK S AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O KALAGHATTA LAMBANI HATTI, B. DURGA HOBLI, HALALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT HOLALKERE – 577 526.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SIDDANOORU VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶17

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶18

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHALLAKERE – 577 522.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:26136 WP No. 22295 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, HOSADURGA – 577 527.

¶23

M/S. BAPUJI VIDYA SAMSTHE (R) BAPUJI CAMPUS T R NAGAR, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHALLAKERE – 577 522, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REG. UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT 1959.

¶24

M/S. RENUKA DEVI (SC/ST) VIDYA SAMSTHE (R), S NERALAKERE, SRIRAMPURA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, HOSADURGA – 577 526 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REG. UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT 1959.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. G. RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) SETTING ASIDE THE MEMORANDUM / ENDORSEMENT DATED 18/05/2024 BEARING NO. A3.ANU.AANE.AAKU.CR 136/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE R4 AS PER ANNX-X AND CONSEQUENTLY OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE R2 DATED 19/04/2024 BEARING NO. ANU3.KHA PRO SHA. DWI. DA. SA. HU. NE. ANU 01/2024-25 VIDE ANN-W AND ETC.,

¶28

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

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26136 WP No. 22295 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the

¶34

following reliefs:

¶35

1) Issue writ of certiorari setting-aside the Memorandum/Endorsement dated 18.05.2024 bearing No.A3.Anu.AaNe.AKu.CR 136/2023-24 issued by the Respondent No.4 as per AnnexureX and consequently Official Memorandum issued by the Respondent No.2 dated 19.04.2024 bearing No.Anu3: Kha Pro Sha: Dwi. Da. Sa. Hu. Ne. Anu:01/2024-25 vide Annexure-W;

¶36

2) Issue Writ of Mandamus or Order or Direction or any other Writ in the similar nature directing the Respondents to consider the candidature of the Petitioner for the job of her husband on compassionate grounds;

¶37

3) Grant any such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of the above petition.

¶38

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ

¶39

petition are as follows:

¶40

The husband of the petitioner late Sri Krishna Naik.S

¶41

was serving as the Assistant Teacher (Science) at Sri Bapuji Rural High School, Ramagiri, Holalkere Taluk,

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26136 WP No. 22295 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Chitradurga District run by respondent No.5. He died during his service. On 30.07.2020, the petitioner had completed her SSLC at the time of death of her husband and being eligible for job on compassionate grounds had submitted an application to respondent No.5 and the petitioner had completed the PUC in 2021. On 08.06.2023, the petitioner applied for the post of Second Division Assistant. Since no such vacant posts were available with respondent No.5 at that time, the petitioner was permitted to be appointed with any other institutions. The petitioner has applied for and was appointed as Second Division Assistant by respondent No.6 at Maruti High School, Vengalapura, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District run by respondent No.6 on 10.06.2023. On 19.03.2023, respondent No.4 has forwarded the proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground with respondent No.6 Institution along with the relevant documents. On 19.04.2023, respondent No.2 by official memorandum has endorsed that the application of the

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26136 WP No. 22295 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

petitioner cannot be considered since the petitioner has passed the PUC through Karnataka State Open Education Board and other documents are time barred. The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned endorsement, filed this writ petition.

¶48

3. Respondent No.1 filed the statement of objections contending that the Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Ground) Rules, 1996 Rule-5 states that the dependents of the deceased employees have to apply for appointment on a companionate ground within one year from the date of death of the employee. It is contended that the petitioner requested to provide the post of SDA on the basis of their PUC qualification. The petitioner has obtained Senior Secondary Examination/equivalent to 10+2 qualification from the Karnataka State Open Education Examination Board on August 2021. As per the Government order dated 27.01.2015, it has been clarified that the 10+2 examination conducted by the Open Universities should

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:26136 WP No. 22295 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

not be considered for the appointment, and the petitioners

¶52

did not have 10+2 qualification as on the date of submission of the application. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶53

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondents.

¶54

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶55

the petitioner was appointed as SDA in respondent No.6Institution. He submits that respondent No.4 forwarded the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. Respondent No.2 vide official memorandum dated 19.04.2024 has endorsed stating that the petitioner has completed PUC through the Karnataka State Open Education Board, and other documents are time barred. He submits that there is no such restriction imposed behind the rules. He submits that respondent No.4 without considering the said aspect has passed the

¶56

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:26136 WP No. 22295 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

impugned order. He also submits that in the impugned order, respondent No.2 has not stated under which provision the order has been passed. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶59

6. Per contra , learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner has passed the PUC through Karnataka State Open Education Board is not equivalent to that of PUC certificate issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board. Hence, the petitioner is not eligible for the post of Second Division Assistant. Hence, on this ground, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶60

7. Perused the records and considered the

¶61

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶62

8. It is an undisputed fact that the husband of the petitioner was working as the Assistant Teacher (Science) at Sri Bapuji Rural High School, Ramagiri, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District. He died on 30.07.2020 while in service. After the demise of the husband of the petitioner,

¶63

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:26136 WP No. 22295 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

the petitioner submitted an application for appointment as

¶66

SDA on compassionate ground. The petitioner was appointed as SDA in respondent No.6-Institution. Respondent No.4 forwarded the application of the petitioner for approval. Respondent No.4 has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has passed the PUC through the Karnataka State Open Education Board and other documents are time barred.

¶67

9. From the perusal of the impugned order passed by respondent No.4, it does not disclose under which provision respondent No.4 has passed an order stating that the petitioner is not qualified for the post of Second Division Assistant. When a specific quarry was put to the learned Government Advocate under which provision respondent No.4 has passed an order. The learned Government Advocate was unable to point out under which provisions respondent No.4 has passed an order.

¶68

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:26136 WP No. 22295 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

10. Respondent No.4 has not mentioned in the impugned order under which provision he has passed an order. Respondent No.4 before passing an impugned order no opportunity was given to the petitioner. The impugned order passed by respondent No.4 is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, on this ground, alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶71

11. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

¶72

pass the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶75

ii. The Official Memorandum issued by respondent No.2 dated 19.04.2024 vide Annexure-W is set aside.

¶76

iii. Respondent No.4 is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner for approval after providing an opportunity of hearing and passed an appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of one month from

¶77