AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J—Government Advocate is directed to take notice.
Heard Shri Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Smt. Veena Hegade, learned Counsel Government Pleader appearing for respondent.
Petitioner is seeking for following reliefs:
"I. Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement bearing No: CFS/EST(l) A.C.G. 08/2014-15 dated 20.11.2014 passed by the respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking for appointment on compassionate ground as per ANNEXURE-A.
II. Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground ignoring the fact that the petitioner is a married woman."
Grievance of the petitioner is that her father was working as a Deputy Tahasildar at Kon and due to cardiac arrest he expired on 26.05.2014 and as such, an application was filed seeking appointment on compassionate ground, claiming that she is the only daughter and as such, she may be provided appointment on compassionate ground.
It was also contended by her that though she was married, her husband Shri Amith Mutagi is unemployed and as such, she sought for appointment on compassionate grounds. She also appended to her application, degree certificate which is Bachelor of Engineering in Electrical and Electronics and sought for being appointed on compassionate grounds. Respondent - Authority considered her application and rejected her claim on the ground that Rule 3(2)(c) of Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds), Rules 1996 disentitles married daughter to seek for appointment on compassionate ground by endorsement dated 20.11.2014 Annexure-A, which is impugned in the present writ petition.
Shri Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner would contend that rejection of application filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is bad in law, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the fact of unmarried daughter alone being entitled to seek compassionate appointment, as per Rule 3(2)(c) would be in violation of Article 16 and hence, relying upon judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of R. Jayamma Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board and Another, (1992) ILR (Kar) 3416 : (1992) 3 KarLJ 570 : (1993) 1 LLJ 587 , he prays for quashing of impugned endorsement and seeks for a direction to the respondent to consider the application filed by petitioner for being appointed on compassionate grounds. Per contra, learned HCGP would support the impugned order and contends that it is in accordance with extant rules and as such she prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment on compassionate ground is in deviation of normal rules of appointment and as such, it is the extant Rules which governs such appointment. Said appointment is extended to the family to tide over financial crisis which it would be facing on account of sudden demise of bread earner of family. Dependant of deceased government servant cannot seek such employment on the ground of fundamental right or legal right and this view is also fortified by law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Srinath v. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2008 (3) KCCR 1790 (DB).
Thus, applicant will not have a special or additional claim or right to seek appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground of violation of fundamental right. It has been held by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and Another Vs. Somvir Singh, (2007) 113 FLR 225 : (2007) 3 JT 398 : (2007) 2 LLJ 230 : (2007) 3 SCALE 42 : (2007) 4 SCC 778 : (2007) 2 SCC(L&S) 92 : (2007) 2 SCR 509 that claim of an applicant for being appointed on compassionate grounds would be governed by the existing Scheme, Instructions or Rules framed by an employer. It has been held that judicial review would also be limited namely to ascertain as to whether there is any infraction in decision making process and not the decision by itself. It has been held in said case to the following effect:
"7. Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 16(2) protects citizens against discrimination in respect of any employment or office under the State on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent. It is so well settled and needs no restatement at our ends that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process. Such appointments are required to be made on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Dependants of employees died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer.
In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 68 FLR 1191 : (1994) 3 JT 525 : (1994) 2 SCALE 834 : (1994) 4 SCC 138 : (1994) 3 SCR 893 : (1995) 1 SLJ 229 : (1994) 2 UJ 322 this Court held, "As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post held by the deceased."
(emphasis added)
In Union Bank of India and Others Vs. M.T. Latheesh, (2006) 111 FLR 77 : (2006) 3 LLJ 791 : (2006) 8 SCALE 145 : (2006) 7 SCC 350 : (2006) SCC(L&S) 1646 : (2006) 5 SCR 696 Supp , this Court while dealing with the similar question observed that indiscriminate grant of employment on compassionate grounds would shut the door for employment to the ever-growing population of unemployed youth.
There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant-Bank is required to consider the request for compassionate appointment only in accordance with the scheme framed by it and no discretion as such left with any of the authorities to make compassionate appointment de hors the scheme. In our considered opinion the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be."
Thus, keeping the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Somvir Singh''s case as well as judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Srinath''s case, when facts on hand are examined, it would indicate that an application came to be filed by petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground, contending inter alia that her father was working as a Deputy Tahasildar at Ron and on account of his untimely demise, she may be appointed on compassionate ground. Undisputedly, deceased was an employee of State. Insofar as appointment on compassionate grounds in respect of applicants or dependants of deceased employee who files such application would be governed by extant rules known and called as "The Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules 1996, (For short ''Rules'') and there is no dispute on this aspect.
Undisputedly, petitioner filed an application seeking employment on compassionate ground on the basis of above said Rules which was in force and vogue. Perusal of said Rule would indicate that under Rule 2(a)(i) dependant of deceased Government servant has been defined and it would mean and include:
(i) "in the case of deceased male Government servant, his widow, son, unmarried daughter and widowed daughter who were dependant upon him and were living with him; and
(ii) in the case of a deceased female Government servant, her widower, son, unmarried daughter and widowed daughter who were dependent upon her and were living with her."
Rule 2(b) defines ''Family'' means:
"his or her spouse and their son, unmarried daughter and widowed daughter who were living with the deceased Government servant".
Application which came to be filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds is by virtue of Rule 3 of Rules and it reads as under:
"3. An adopted son or daughter of a deceased Government servant shall not be eligible for appointment under these rules".
In fact Rule 3 would clearly indicate that appointment on compassionate grounds under these Rules shall not be claimed as a matter of right and it shall not be given as a matter of course. Rule 3(2)(b) disentitles an unmarried (sic) daughter from claiming right of appointment. Said Rule cannot be construed as either violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India, for the simple reason that married daughter is presumed to be living in her matrimonial home with her husband and as such she would not fall within the four corners of being considered to be dependent "of the deceased employee". In cases of appointment on compassionate grounds the most important factor which will have to be taken note of is "dependency" of the applicant on deceased employee. If on facts it would reveal that applicant was not dependant on the income of deceased his application will have to be rejected at threshold itself. As such, it would be too far fetched for an applicant to contend that though she being married and living in her matrimonial home, yet she would be entitled to claim appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that she has to be construed as ''dependent'' of deceased. This would amount to stretching the logic to an illogical end and same is impermissible. Said contention would be contrary to the extant Rules and it does not even appeal to logic.
In view of law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court holding that there is no vested right for an applicant to claim appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right and such appointment would be governed by extant Rules would squarely apply to facts on hand. In the instant case, respondent -Authorities have rightly held that petitioner being a married daughter she would not be entitled to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. In that view of the matter, no infirmity is found in the impugned endorsement issued to petitioner.
Insofar as judgment of co-ordinate Bench in the case of R. Jayamma Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board and Another, (1992) ILR (Kar) 3416 : (1992) 3 KarLJ 570 : (1993) 1 LLJ 587 relied upon by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that same is distinguishable on facts and principles laid down therein is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances f the case on hand for reasons more than one. Firstly, in the said case, though daughter had got married, she had been deserted by her husband as stated by her before the employer as well as before Court; and secondly, she had placed material before the employer of her father to demonstrate though she was married, her husband was mentally deranged and had deserted her. In other words, it was her specific case that even after marriage she was living with her father and was solely dependent on his income and as such it came to be held by this Court that applicant therein was dependant on the income of deceased Government servant as on date of his demise. It is in this background, Co-ordinate Bench had held that petitioner therein would be entitled to claim appointment on compassionate grounds. Whereas, in the instant case, except a stray sentence in paragraph 2 of writ petition that petitioner''s husband is without employment, no material whatsoever is placed to show that petitioner was dependent on the income of deceased even after her marriage. In fact, petitioner herself claims to be a B.E. graduate (Electrical and Electronics) as per Annexure-E and the extant rules provide for appointment on compassionate grounds to Group C and D posts only. Petitioner being a B.E. graduate and having attained the status of a married woman cannot be expected to contend that she is not dependant on her husband though she is married or to contend even after marriage she was dependant on the income of deceased. To drive home the point of dependency no material whatsoever came to be produced by petitioner along with her application. For these myriad reasons, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of Shri Shriharsh A. Neelopant and same stands rejected. Consequently, writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.
Smt. Veena Hegade, learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.