Shri. Srinivasa G. vs State of Karnataka, Department of Women and Child Development

Anand Byrareddy

Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The learned Government Pleader seeks time to file statement of objections.

However, the present petition does not merit consideration, as evident from the following facts:

The petitioner is said to he the son of one Rangamma, who was working as a Sweeper in the second respondent-Society. The petitioner''s mother is said to have died on 15.08.2009. while in service. The petitioner also had, lost his father in September 2009 and therefore, the petitioner along with his brother who were dependent on the earning of their parents were left without any source of livelihood. The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste and he has passed S.S.L.C. and therefore, had sought for appointment on compassionate grounds with the respondents. The second respondent instead of considering the request of the petitioner, according to the petitioner, had issued an endorsement rejecting the claim of the petitioner dated 23.03.2010 and that there was a policy decision taken by the second respondent-Society not to make appointments on compassionate grounds as there were already excess of staff with the Society. It is the petitioners grievance that there have been several instances, where the second respondent has, in identical circumstances sought the advise of the first respondent and thereafter has taken a decision in conferring such appointments on compassionate grounds. Therefore, the petitioner being given a step motherly treatment is sought to be questioned. The petitioner cites other instances. where the respondents have taken a different view and when the petitioner has made out a case for appointment on compassionate grounds and having due regard to his qualification and age. the petitioner seeks an appropriate direction to the respondents to reconsider his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds.

As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, there is no vested right in the petitioner and some instances cited by the petitioner, whereby the respondents may have conferred appointment on compassionate grounds on earlier occasions does not ipso facto confer any vested right on the petitioner to seek such appointment. The discretion to grant appointment on compassionate grounds remains with the employer and therefore, he would submit there is no ground made out for interference.

The objection is well taken, since there is apparently no right for the petitioner to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. The rules, if any which are framed as regards the appointment on compassionate grounds are merely procedural which entitles a person to seek such appointment and it is for the employer either to appoint or not to appoint as the occasion arises. Therefore, even if the respondents have acted arbitrarily in rejecting the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. it does not afford a right to the petitioner to question the same.

Accordingly, the petition does not merit consideration and is rejected.