Sri Shivappa B.N. vs Under Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Vidhana Scudha, Bangalore, DMA, Administrative Office, Vishweshwerayya Podium, Bangalore and Town Panchayat, Administrative Office

A.N. Venugopala Gowda

Petitioner''s father who was a Poura Karmika in the office of the 3rd respondent passed away on 10.11.1999. Petitioner''s mother Smt. Laxmamma submitted an application for appointment of compassionate ground on 4.9.2000. Petitioner''s mother died on 4.5.2001. Petitioners sister submitted an application on 16.5.2001 informing that the petitioner is a minor and the petitioner may be granted appointment upon he attaining the age of majority. The respondents having sent a communication dated 20.7.2007 and having not granted appointment on compassionate ground, petitioner filed W.P. 17335/2007 which was disposed of on 10.12.2007 directing the Director of Municipal Administration to receive the representation and then proceed further as per the directions issued and in accordance with law. The petitioner submitted further representation dated 7.1.2008. Considering the claim of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has passed an order dated 26.5.2008 declining to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition to quash the said order and to direct the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground on account of death of his father and in the light of a communication issued by the office of the Chief Minister dated 20.7.2007.

Sri Santketh M. Yenagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father on 10.11.1999 and hence, on 4.9.2000 his mother made an application to provide appointment on compassionate ground and she having died, the petitioner''s sister made an application on 16.5.2001 and immediately upon attaining the age of majority, the petitioner applied to the respondents to grant appointment in the light of the communication issued by the Office of the Chief Minister and also the order passed on 10.12.2007 in W.P. 17335/2007. Learned counsel submitted that the 2nd respondent has not examined the claim of the petitioner in the correct perspective and decision taken as at Annexure-P is arbitrary and illegal.

Sri Raghavendra G Gayatri, learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand placed reliance on the decision in the case of K.M. Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka and Another (2008 (3) KLJ 222 (DB)) and submitted that, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground at this length of time is wholly untenable.

Indisputably, petitioner has no obligation to take care of his parents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has the obligation to take care of an unmarried sister. The petitioner''s father having died on 10.11.1999, the family has overcome the crisis, in view of the intervening period of nearly 13 years from the date of death and till now. In the circumstances, the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sulochana Duttagiri Vs. The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., and others (W.P. 81385/2010 D.D. 19.7.2010), squarely applies and the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is untenable. The appointment on compassionate ground being not a right, but being in terms of the scheme formulated by the appointing authority, the ratio of law in the case of K.M. Prakash (supra) also applies. The petitioner has to seek appointment in the normal course as and when any recruitment process is undertaken.

In the result, writ petition being untenable, rule stands discharged and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.