The State Of Karnataka & Anr. vs Sri Sathish V Gulla

Writ Petition No.106662 of 2026:

Writ Petition No.106664 of 2026:

"4. Conditions of Appointment:-

Appointment on compassionate grounds under these rules shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(1)

The family of the deceased Government Servant should be in a financial crisis or destitution.

Explanation.- (a) Family of a deceased Government Servant shall be considered to be in financial crisis or destitution if the recurring monthly income of the family from all sources is less than the total emoluments including Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance admissible at Bangalore on the average of the minimum and the maximum of the scale of pay of the post of the First Division Assistant, as on the date of making application for compassionate appointment. For calculating such monthly income, the income from family pension, lumpsum pensionary benefits and interest earned thereon shall be excluded.

(b)

Recurring monthly income from all sources other than family pension, lumpsum pensionary benefits and the interest earned thereon, of the family for the purpose of this rule shall be computed by the Head of the Office or the Head of the Department or the appointing authority;

(i)

on the basis of the last annual property return filed by the deceased Government Servant and if, for any reason, it is not available, on the basis of a certificate of income issued by a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar; and

(ii)

in case any member of the family of the deceased Government Servant is employed in any State or Central Government Service or a public or private sector undertaking or a private establishment, on the basis of a certificate issued by his employer and in case such member is self employed on the basis of certificate issued by a revenue officer not below the rank of Tahsildar.

1 [Provided that, nothing in sub-rule (1), shall apply to Government Servants belonging to Group-C and D]1

(2)

Person seeking appointment shall be within the age limit specified for the post in the relevant rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post read with sub rule (3) of rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 and where it is not so specified such person shall be within the age limits specified in the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977.

[ Provided that, the age specified above shall not apply to widow or widower of the deceased Government servant, who seeks appointment under these rules. The age limit for these dependents shall not exceed fifty five years at the time of submitting application.]

(3)

Person seeking appointment should possess the minimum qualification specified for the post in the relevant rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post.

[Provided that nothing in this sub rule and sub rule (5) of rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 in so far as it relates to educational qualification, shall apply to appointment under these rules to any Group ‘D’ Post.]

2[(4) Appointment shall be confined to any post in Group “C” or Group “D” depending upon the qualification specified for the post but excluding the posts carrying the pay scales higher than the scale of pay of the post of Assistant in the Karnataka Government Secretariat as may be revised from time to time and any other post in either of the groups as may be specified by the Government from time to time”.]

(5)

Appointment shall be made only against a direct recruitment vacancy.

3[(xxxxxxxxxxx).]3

(6)

Appointment shall be made in the department in which the deceased Government Servant was working;

Provided that if no vacancy is available in that department subject to any general order that may be issued by the Government appointment may be made in any other department of the Government where the vacancy is available.

.... .... ....

6. Appointment by the Competent Authority:-

(1)

On receipt of the application under rule 5, the Head of the Department, if satisfied that the applicant fulfills all the conditions specified under these rules, shall appoint, where he is the appointing authority, and if not direct the appropriate appointing authority to issue the order of appointment.

(2)

The appointment under sub-rule (1) shall be made as far as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under rule 5.

(3)

Consultation with the Finance Department shall not be necessary for appointment under these rules.

(4)

Appointment once made under these rules shall be final and no fresh appointment to a different post or higher post under these rules shall be permissible.

(5)

The appointment under these rules shall not be made in the case of the dependent of a deceased person who at the time of death was on re-employment or was employed as Local Candidate, Stipendiary Graduate or Daily Wage Worker or employed in any work charged establishment or on casual employment. [or whole time or part-time employees paid out of contingencies.

Provided that applications pending on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2010 shall be disposed in accordance with the provisions as existed before the commencement of this said amendment rules.

(6)

No candidate shall be appointed to a Group “C” post under these rules unless he passes the Kannada Language Test prescribed under the Karnataka Civil Services (Recruitment) (Kannada Language Test) Rules, 1984 except those who are exempted under the said rules.

(7)

The appointment under these rules shall be made in accordance with the provisions that are prevailing on the date of application." Rule 4 deals with appointment be confined to any post in Group-C or Group-D depending upon the qualification specified for the post but excluding the posts carrying the pay scales higher than the scale of pay of the post of Assistant in the Karnataka Government Secretariat. Rule 6 mandates that appointments once made under the Rules shall be final and no fresh appointment to a different post or a higher post is permissible. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 6 permits that the appointment under the Rules should be made in accordance with the provisions that are prevailing as on the date of the application. The Government has notified a circular in furtherance of the said Rules on 27-10-2017 wherein the lowest post in Group-C would require graduation and State had been committing frequent errors in appointing persons qualified to hold Group-C posts being appointed in Group-D posts. It is to set the anomaly right the circular comes to be issued. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts, the orders of the Tribunal require to be noticed. The order of the Tribunal impugned in Writ Petition No.106662 of 2026 is as follows:

".... .... ....

(b)

The Government of Karnataka, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, issued a Circular dated 27.10.2017, instructing all competent authorities to follow strictly the educational criteria while appointing the persons on compassionate appointment. In the said Circular, the educational qualification prescribed for Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts is SSLC and for Group ‘C’ posts, namely, SDA and Junior Assistant, the qualification prescribed is PUC or its equivalent. So far as the post of FDA, the qualification prescribed is Degree or its equivalent. The Government has noticed that in many cases, the educational qualification has not been taken into consideration while appointing Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts, and the Government issued instructions to the competent authorities to strictly adhere the aforesaid Circular i.e., educational criteria while appointing persons on compassionate appointment;

(c)

The 2^nd Respondent while appointing the Applicant on compassionate ground, ought to have taken into consideration the Government Circular dated 27.10.2017 issued by the Government of Karnataka which provides that while appointing a person on compassionate ground for the post of First Division Assistant, the educational qualification is degree or equivalent qualification. As the Applicant did his Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering, he ought to have been appointed as First Division Assistant, whereas, in utter disregard of the said Government instructions issued by the Government of Karnataka, the 2^nd Respondent, appointed the Applicant as Second Division Assistant. Therefore, the said illegality has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.

(d)

Because of the illegality committed by the 2^nd Respondent, the Applicant is now working as Second Division Assistant and it may take another 10 to 15 years for his promotion as First Division Assistant, besides, the Applicant who is a holder of Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering, has to work as Second Division Assistant, and the qualification prescribed for Second Division Assistant is only PUC. It would definitely affect his morale to work as Second Division Assistant for no fault of his and because of the total non-application of mind and arbitrary action of the 2^nd Respondent;

(e)

The illegality committed by the 2^nd Respondent while appointing the Applicant as Second Division Assistant ignoring the Government Circular dated 27.10.2017, cannot be allowed to perpetuate since the very appointment of the Applicant is in violation of the said Circular. Each day of the Applicant's working as Second Division Assistant, gives fresh cause of action for him to challenge the illegality committed by the 2^nd Respondent. Though he gave a representation on 23.11.2018, the 2^nd Respondent has not considered the same, and on the other hand, by wrongly relying on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above, issued an endorsement dated 21.01.2019 rejecting the Applicant's request for modification of the appointment Order, to appoint him as First Division Assistant instead of Second Division Assistant;

(f)

The 2^nd Respondent acted in an utter disregard of the Government Circular and also, wrongly relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the facts of which case are not at all applicable to the facts of the Applicant's case;

(g)

During February 2024, the Applicant came to know that on 29.09.2016, the 2^nd Respondent issued an Official Memorandum appointing two persons, namely, Sri Parashurama R. Doddamani, and Sri Jagadeesh Sangappa Abdulpura, for the post of First Division Assistants though they were appointed for Group-D Post, having regard to their qualification i.e., B.Com., Degree and MBA Degree, respectively. Similar benefits ought to have been extended to the Applicant also. Under such circumstances, the illegality committed by the 2^nd Respondent in ignoring the Government Circular dated 27.10.2017 and appointing for the post of Second Division Assistant without considering his qualification, cannot be continued perpetually and since it is continuing wrong, this Tribunal may set right the illegality committed by the 2nd Respondent;

(h)

Similarly, in respect of one Kumari Rajeshwari Ashok Patil, who is a holder of Bachelor's Degree in Business Management and Sri Dattatreya Ashok Bhairavadagi, MBA Graduate were given appointment on compassionate as First Division Assistant Group 'C' post on 16.09.2014 and 16.09.2014, respectively, copies of which are produced and marked as Annexure-A7 and A8, respectively;

(i)

The Applicant who has lost his father due to serious illness, was compelled to join as Second Division Assistant since there were no other persons in his family to eke out their livelihood. He had to take care of his mother and for that, there was no other option before the Applicant but to report for duty. His mother and other well-wishers, forced the Applicant to report for duty as Second Division Assistant. In the appointment Order also, the 2nd Respondent has imposed a condition that he should report for duty within 15 days or else, the appointment order would be cancelled. As the family was under serious financial difficulty and there was no other earning member in the family, the Applicant having left with no other option, reported for duty.

(v)

Rule 6(4) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, clearly states that, the Appointment once made under these rules shall be final and no fresh appointment to a different post or higher post under these rules shall be permissible;

(vi)

Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 clearly states that, the appointment on compassionate grounds under these rules shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a matter of course;

(vii)

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).386 of 2014 in the case of S.R. Manikya & Ors v. High Court of Karnataka respondent(s) with Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).765 of 2015 is held that the controversy as to what should be an effective date of appointment of the petitioners is, in our opinion, squarely covered by the direction already issued by this Court in the paragraph extracted above. That is because the appointment of the petitioners has come to be made pursuant to the order passed by this Court, which in no uncertain terms stipulates that the same will take effect from the date of the issuance of the orders of appointment. The expression "will be taken from the date of issuance of the order of appointment" is much too clear to admit of any equivocation. The spirit and the purport of the said direction is that the appointments will not be given retrospective effect nor will such appointments count for seniority over candidates who had already been appointed to the cadre. Therefore, the Applicant has no right to claim compassionate appointment to higher cadre with retrospective effect;

(viii)

It is well settled principle that the object of compassionate ground appointment is to immediately help to family to tide over crisis that befalls when breadwinner of the family loses his life by giving appointment as expeditiously as possible. In the present case the Applicant has submitted for appointment on compassionate ground on 08.03.2017 and he has been issued with an appointment letter 12.10.2017 without any delay. The Applicant has been appointed in Group ‘C’ post and he accepted the post without any demur but has raised objections after laps of time after accepting the employment. In the case on hand, the father of Applicant died on 28.03.2017 and he was issued with an appointment letter on 26.03.2018 without any delay. Hence the appointment on compassionate ground of Applicant in Group ‘C’ post is in accordance with law;

(ix)

It is well settled law that, recruitment rules and policies generally operate prospectively i.e., from the date they are issued, an appointment or recruitment order cannot be issued with retrospective effect. A candidate's right to a post and associated benefits arises only from the date of the actual appointment, not from a prior date when the appointment order was received. The power to issue recruitment rules with retrospective effect exists for a sovereign legislature, but it is highly restricted and generally impermissible for executive authorities or in individual cases, especially if it negatively impacts existing rights of other employees;

(x)

That in view of the facts and circumstances, the action taken by the Respondents is just and reasonable. Thus, viewed from any angle, the Applicant is not entitled to any reliefs as sought in the above application and the same is liable to be dismissed as the Application is very premature at this stage;

(xi)

The averments stated by the Applicant are baseless, vague, illegal and intentionally misleading the Court and the ground urged by the Applicant is not sustainable from any point of view. Hence, grounds and application submitted by the Petitioner are liable for rejection.

6.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the respondents. We have also considered the pleadings on both sides. It is the case of the applicant that on the death of his father while he was in service, the applicant was appointed on compassionate ground on 26.03.2018 as second division assistant. The applicants’ contention is that since he possesses degree in mechanical engineering as per the circular issued by the DPAR he is entitled for the post of First Division Assistant. His further contention is that in similar cases the respondents have considered the request of the candidates for higher post. However, in his case the respondents issued the endorsement denying his request for the post commensurate with his qualification, that is degree in mechanical engineering. He submits that the impugned endorsement denying the post of FDA sought for is arbitrary and illegal.

7.

In support of his case the applicant relied on the judicial precedent, namely, Union of India and another v. Shashank Goswami and another, (2012) 11 SCC 307 that the appointments on compassionate ground should be made in accordance with the Rules, Regulations, or Administrative Instructions.

8.

For the applicant it is also contended that in similar circumstances, two persons, namely, Sri Parashurama R. Doddamani and Sri Jagadeesh Sangappa Abdulpura, for the post of First Division Assistant who were appointed to Group ‘D’ post and reported for duty on 05.09.2015 and 05.03.2016, were appointed to Group ‘C’ post as they possessed B.Com., Degree and MBA Degree, respectively. The same yardstick ought to have been followed in the case of the Applicant and he ought to have been appointed as First Division Assistant commensurate with his qualification. Therefore, the action of the 2^nd Respondent is discriminatory, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

9.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for our interference. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i)

The application is allowed;

(ii)

The impugned endorsement bearing No.SSLR/ 15021/09/2018 dated 21.01.2019 at AnnexureA5 issued by the 2^nd respondent, is quashed;

(ii)

We direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for the post of First Division Assistant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order."

“ …. …. ….

1.

These appeals are directed against the impugned order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The appellant on the death of his father was given a compassionate appointment as Second Division Assistant/Clerk, even though he had applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise and did possess the necessary qualification for the said post. Respondents 3 and 4 whose father also died while in service were appointed similarly as Second Division Assistant/Clerk on 9-1-1978 and 19-12-1979 respectively. Those Respondents 3 and 4 while continuing as Second Division Assistant/Clerk were later on promoted/appointed as Sub-Inspector of Excise on 3-10-1987 and 27-4-1988. The appellant who had been earlier appointed on compassionate ground as Second Division Assistant/Clerk and was entitled to be considered for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Excise was not considered when Respondents 3 and 4 were appointed as Sub-Inspector of Excise. The appellant therefore moved the State Administrative Tribunal claiming that his case for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Excise be considered or in the alternative the appointment of Respondents 3 and 4 be quashed. The Tribunal considered the application of the appellant and did not grant the relief of his case being considered for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Excise. The Tribunal, however, quashed the appointment of Respondents 3 and 4 as Sub-Inspector of Excise. Against the aforesaid order, the State of Karnataka had approached this Court in special leave petition but that special leave petition stood dismissed. Respondents 3 and 4, however, approached this Court against the order quashing their appointment as Sub-Inspector of Excise. This Court, however, made some observations in that special leave petition and permitted Respondents 3 and 4 to file an application for review before the State Administrative Tribunal. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, Respondents 3 and 4 having approached the Tribunal for review of the earlier order, the Tribunal by the impugned order reviewed its earlier order and did not interfere with the appointment of Respondents 3 and 4 on the ground that the appellant has moved the Tribunal against the appointment of Respondents 3 and 4 belatedly and therefore the same could not be interfered with. It is this review order of the Tribunal which is the subject-matter of challenge in the present appeals.

2.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that even though Respondents 3 and 4's appointment could not be assailed on the ground of belated approach by the appellant but the prayer with regard to consideration of the appellant for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise could not have been rejected by the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the State Government, on the other hand, contended that against the earlier order when the Tribunal denied the relief of considering the case of the appellant for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise, the appellant having not moved this Court, the same has become final and therefore should not be interfered with by this Court. There is some force in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the State. But having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case and admittedly Respondents 3 and 4, who were similarly situated like the appellant and who were given compassionate appointment later than the appellant, having been appointed as Sub-Inspector of Excise, the appellant has a justifiable grievance. It is true that the appointment on compassionate ground in the State of Karnataka is not governed by any statutory rules but by a set of administrative instructions and as such is not enforceable in a court of law. But the grounds on which the appellant makes out the case for consideration of his case, is the violation of Article 14 and discriminatory treatment meted out to the appellant. It is undisputed that the date on which the appellant was given a compassionate appointment as Second Division Assistant/Clerk he had the necessary qualification for being appointed as Sub-Inspector of Excise. It is also undisputed that Respondents 3 and 4 were given appointment initially as Second Division Assistant/Clerk but later than the appellant. When the State, therefore, thought it fit to change the post of Respondents 3 and 4 and appointed them to the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise, unless there is any justifiable reason existing, there is no reason as to why the appellant should be treated with hostile discrimination. In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal rejecting the prayer of the appellant for being considered for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise and we direct that the State Government may consider the case of appointment of the appellant as Sub-Inspector of Excise. Be it stated, in the event he is appointed it would be prospective and he will not be entitled to any retrospective benefit. The appeals are allowed accordingly.”

“…. …. ….

2.

The admitted facts of the case are that the respondent writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 32634 of 2003 when he was 19 years old and studying second year B.Com., his father who was working as a Junior Health Inspector died in harness. Hence he applied for compassionate appointment and that apart the respondent-writ petitioner was also a physically challenged person. Despite he applied on 13.06.1990 for the post of Second Division Assistant, the respondents had not considered his application immediately thereafter. In the meanwhile, he completed his degree and graduated in April 1992 and became qualified for the post of First Division Assistant. But on 21.07.1992 the respondent without taking into consideration the degree qualification appointed him only as a Second Division Assistant, which necessitated the writ petitioner of course after joining duty in the post of Second Division Assistant to make further representation to consider him for the post of First Division Assistant. He also made a representation on 02.07.1992, but the respondents rejected the said representation. A further representation on 07.12.2001 was made requesting the respondents for appointing him as the First Division Assistant and as no orders were passed, Writ Petition No. 32634 of 2003 was filed seeking for a writ of mandamus to consider his representation to appoint him in the post of First Division Assistant. In fact, the Commissioner of the City Municipal Corporation also by proceedings dated 09.07.1992 recommended the petitioner to the post of First Division Assistant. Taking all these facts into consideration, the learned Single Judge by order dated 14.06.2006 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as a First Division Assistant in the available vacancy within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Hence aggrieved by the said order, the State has filed the present writ appeal.

3.

According to the learned Government Advocate, as per Rule 6(4) once an appointment is made under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, it shall be final and no fresh appointment to a different post or a higher post under these rules shall be permissible.

4.

In our considered opinion, the above rule is not attracted to the facts of this case at all. If the authorities had overlooked the qualification the applicant already possessed at the time of his appointment and also ignored the representation of the applicant mainly because the authorities have passed an appointment order to a lower post, will not take away the right of the petitioner to claim the higher post. Therefore, in our considered opinion Section 6(4) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. But at the same time, we find the respondent-writ petitioner was unnecessarily harassed for the past 17 years by the respondents. Hence we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to award exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/-. Writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.”

“ …. …. ….

3.

It is submitted that several similarly situated persons as that of the petitioner had obtained orders of rectification of their appointment and reliance is placed on the order of this court in the case of H.N.Guruprasad v. The Directorate of Municipal Administration and Others (W.P.No.32634/2003 disposed off on 14.06.2006). The petitioner submits that the appeal filed against W.P.No.32634/2003 has been rejected. Thus the order in Guruprasad's case has attained finality. The petitioner submits that W.P.No.8726/2018 was filed which was allowed as per the order at Annexure-'H' on 20.10.2020. The petitioner had challenged the order of 17.06.2017 by the respondent-State declining to accede to the request of the petitioner to appoint her to the post of First Division Assistant as against Second Division Assistant to which she was appointed. The court after detailed consideration has referred to the order passed in Guruprasad's case in W.P.No.32634/2003 at Para 8 and has specifically adverted to the contention of the respondent regarding Rule 6 (4) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 ("the Rules" for short) and has recorded a finding at Para 9 and 10 as follows:

9.

The undisputed facts of the case on hand is that, the petitioner is similarly placed as that of the petitioner in the aforestated writ petition i.e., even the petitioner herein is holding a qualification of degrees in Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Education. In terms of the aforestated judgment and the Government Order dated 24.04.2003, she was entitled to be considered for the post of First Division Assistant when she had applied for an appointment on compassionate ground. That having not been done and when a request was made by the petitioner to follow the judgment of this Court (supra), the request is turned down on the ground that her request is made after 16 years of her appointment and accepting the same.

10.

The State Government had also preferred W.A.No.2060/2006, before a learned Division Bench contending the very same contentions urged in the present case which were negatived by the learned Division Bench by its judgment dated 28.01.2009, in terms of Rule 6(4) of the said Rules and held that the said Rule 6(4) is not applicable to the case on hand. The issue and reasoning rendered by the learned Division Bench (supra) covers the case of the petitioner herein on all fours.

4.

The Coordinate Bench in the earlier writ petition has considered the contention relating to applicability of Rule 6 (4) of the Rules and has set aside the endorsement dated 17.06.2017 and directed the State to reconsider the matter in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders keeping in mind the observations made and in terms of the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, it is clear that reliance on Section 6 (4) of the Rules was turned down and consideration was directed to be made in terms of the law laid down in Guruprasad's case as upheld in W.A.No.2060/2006 dated 28.01.2009. Subsequent to the said judgment, fresh endorsement has been made at Annexure-'K', a perusal of which would show that the State has once again relied on Rule 6 (4) of the Rules to negative the claim of the petitioner.

5.

It is not open for the State after having suffered an order in W.P.No.8726/2018 to urge any fresh grounds. As the order in W.P.No.8726/2018 has attained finality, the question of recourse to Rule 6 (4) would not arise as regards to petitioner's claim.

6.

Learned AGA relies on the order in W.P.No.75144/2013 dated 20.02.2013 in the case of Bharati v. State of Karnataka and Ors. That again is an order that was not relied upon in the previous round of litigation while W.P.No.8726/2018 was disposed off

7.

However, it is noticed that the lis between the petitioner and respondent for all practical purposes has attained finality in view of the order passed by this court and it would not be appropriate to re-open the settled position between the petitioner and respondent as settled in W.P.No.8726/2018.

8.

Accordingly, the endorsement at Annexure-'K' is set aside. The respondent to pass fresh order without re-opening the settled position as found in W.P.No.8726/2018 and pass order as regards the appointment of petitioner as First Division Assistant. The appointment shall be made effective from the date of appointment with continuity of service however, without any financial benefits. The order to be passed within a period of not later than three months from today.”

“ …. …. ….

6.

Ismail Sab was working in respondent No.2 – Town Municipal Council and he died on 02.02.1999. Respondent No.1 after demise of her father, respondent No.1 submitted a representation for compassionate appointment. Appellant No.2 recommended for appointment of the respondent on compassionate ground. The appellants appointed respondent No.1 as a Second Division Assistant on compassionate ground on 11.05.2001. Subsequently, respondent No.1 on the basis of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8726/2018 submitted a representation to consider the case of respondent No.1 in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.8726/2018. The appellants issued an endorsement rejecting the representation of respondent No.1 vide Annexure-H. The similarly placed petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8726/2018 for appointment as a First Division Assistant on the basis of her educational qualification. The said writ petition came to be allowed vide order dated 20.10.2020. The learned Single Judge referring to the order passed in W.P.No.32634/2003 at para No.8 considered the contentions of the appellants regarding Rule 6(4) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules’) and recorded a finding at para Nos.9 and 10 and has set aside the endorsement and directed the State to reconsider the matter in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. The learned Single Judge also recorded that the State Government aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32634/2003, preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.2060/2006. The Co-ordinate Bench dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Government vide order dated 28.01.2009 and held that Rules 6(4) of the Rules is not applicable to the case on hand. The issue and reasoning rendered by the Division Bench (supra) covers the case of respondent No.1 herein. The learned Single Judge placing reliance on the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order passed in W.A.No.2060/2006 held that respondent No.1 is entitled for appointment on a compassionate ground as a First Division Assistant. Further, the learned Single Judge has also observed that the appointment shall be made effective from the date of appointment with continuity of service without any financial benefits. The learned Single Judge placing reliance on the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench, which has attained the finality. The learned Single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, we do not find any error in the impugned order.”

“ …. …. ….

4.

Learned Additional Government Advocate referring to Rule 6[4] of the Karnataka Civil Services [Appointment on Compassionate Grounds] Rules, 1996. ['Rules’ for short] argued that once the appointment made, it is final and no fresh appointment to a different post or higher post under Rules shall be permissible. Accordingly, the application of the respondent was rightly rejected. However, the Tribunal refused to appreciate the tenor of the endorsement, quashed the same much against the prevailing Rules.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent justifying the impugned order submitted that the Tribunal on analyzing the material on record, more particularly, the minimum qualification of SSLC required for the post of Group-C employee which indeed was possessed by him during the pendency of the application i.e., before the issuance of the appointment order, has allowed the application.

6.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

7.

The undisputed facts are that the applicant/respondent has filed an application on 24.07.1998 pursuant to the death of his father on 03.03.1998 and passed the SSLC examination during October 1999 prior to the issuance of the appointment order on 11.03.2003.

8.

Rule 6[4] of the Rules reads thus:

“6[4]. Appointment once made under these rules shall be final and no fresh appointment to a different post or higher post under these rules shall be permissible.”

9.

Considering the said Rule, the Tribunal has held that the said Rule would be applicable to address a situation where the applicant acquires the qualification subsequent to his appointment which in our opinion cannot be held to be unjustifiable. It is not in dispute that the respondent/applicant had modified his application after passing the SSLC examination, acquiring the eligible qualification for the group-C post prior to the order of appointment to a Group-D post. The correspondences made as per Annexures-A3 to A14 would indicate the same. Hence, while issuing the order of appointment, the eligible qualification possessed by the respondent/applicant ought to have been considered and in terms of Rule 4[4], appointment ought to have been offered to a group C post.

10.

Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly allowed the application which cannot be faulted with.

Writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly stands dismissed.

The respondent No.2 is directed to consider the appointment of the respondent to a Group-C post in modification of earlier appointment order and issue appropriate orders order in accordance with law, within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.”

CLAIM FOR HIGHER POST

“8.

Admittedly the respondent's father died in harness while working as Sub-Inspector, CID (Special Branch) on 16-3-1988. The respondent filed an application on 8-4-1988 for his appointment on compassionate ground as Sub-Inspector or LDC according to the availability of vacancy. On a consideration of his plea, he was appointed to the post of LDC by order dated 14-12-1989. He accepted the appointment as LDC. Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of “endless compassion”. Eligibility to be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police is one thing, the process of selection is yet another thing. Merely because of the so-called eligibility, the learned Single Judge of the High Court was persuaded to the view that direction be issued under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules which has no application to the facts of this case.”

10.

In view of the law laid down by this Court, it

WHETHER THE DEPENDANT OF A DECEASED

EMPLOYEE CAN SEEK EMPLOYMENT ON COMPASSIONATE

“10.2

In a given case, it may happen that the dependant of the deceased employee who has applied for appointment on compassionate ground is having the educational qualification of Class II or Class I post and the deceased employee was working on the post of Class/Grade IV and/or lower than the post applied, in that case the dependant/applicant cannot seek the appointment on compassionate ground on the higher post than what was held by the deceased employee as a matter of right, on the ground that he/she is eligible fulfilling the eligibility criteria of such higher post. The aforesaid shall be contrary to the object and purpose of grant of appointment on compassionate ground which as observed hereinabove is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis on the death of the breadearner. As observed above, appointment on compassionate ground is provided out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that some source of livelihood is provided and family would be able to make both ends meet.”

NEGATIVE DISCRIMINATION

“11.

The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. No direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable. Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea. The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again. If such claims are entertained and directions issued, that would not only be against the tenets of the justice but would negate its ethos resulting in the law being a causality culminating in anarchy and lawlessness. The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook the same to confer a right or a claim that does not have legal sanction. Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification.” (emphasis supplied)

“31.

Another argument was raised while referring to two communications dated 28.06.1999 appointing Ms. Jhina Rani Mansingh and Sri Lalatendu Rath as Tracer on promotion, claiming to be from the post of Peon, on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming violation of Article 14, namely the discrimination. Suffice to add, this Court cannot put a stamp on the illegalities committed by the department while perpetuating the same. A litigant coming to the Court cannot claim negative discrimination seeking direction from the Court to the department to act in violation of the law or statutory Rules. It is a settled proposition of law that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality. Reference for the purpose can be made to a judgment of this Court in R. Muthukumar v. The Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO. Relevant para thereof is extracted below:

“28.

A principle, axiomatic in this country's constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. In Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, this court ruled that: “8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated.” (emphasis supplied)

6.

Having heard the learned counsel for the Parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the points that would arise for consideration are:

i)

Whether the respondent, having accepted the appointment to Group-D post, could seek appointment to a higher post afresh?

ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires interference?

7.

The answer to the above questions would be in the negative and affirmative respectively for the following reasons:

(a)

In the State of Karnataka, appointment on compassionate grounds is governed by 1996 Rules. Rule 5 provides for making an application for appointment. The application seeking compassionate appointment shall be made by the dependent of a deceased government servant within one year from the date of death of the government servant, and in case of a minor he must have attained the age of 18 years within two years from the date of death of government servant and he must make an application within two years thereafter. Rule 3, which specifies the eligibility criteria for appointment on compassionate grounds, makes it abundantly clear that appointment under the 1996 Rules shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a matter of course. Rule 6(4) and Rule 6(7) of 1996 Rules read as under:

“6. Appointment by the Competent Authority.

(1)

x x x x x

(2)

x x x x

(4)

Appointment once made under these rules shall be final and no fresh appointment to a different post or higher post under these rules shall be permissible.

(5)

x x x x

(6)

x x x x

(7)

The appointment, under these rules shall be made in accordance with the provisions that are prevailing on the date of application.”

Above Rule 6(4) would make it clear that appointment once made under the 1996 Rules shall be final and no fresh appointment to a different post or higher post under 1996 Rules shall be permissible. Under sub-rule (7) of Rule 6 of the Rules, it is made abundantly clear that appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1996 Rules shall be made in accordance with the provisions that are prevailing on the date of application.

(b)

In the case on hand, the respondent made an application on 06.12.2021 claiming appointment on compassionate grounds on the death of her husband who was working as SDA in the Office of the petitioner No. 5-Deputy Conservator of Forests, Karnataka State Forest Academy, Dharwad. It is not in dispute that, as on the date of making an application the respondent possessed qualification of SSLC. The respondent acquired the qualification of II Year PUC only in the month of April, 2023. In terms of Rule 5 of 1996 Rules, the application for appointment on compassionate grounds shall be made within one year from the date of death of the government servant. The application filed by the respondent for compassionate appointment is within time. In terms of the said application, the petitioner possessed the qualification of SSLC. Considering the said application and qualification of the respondent as on the date of making the application, the respondent was appointed to Group-D post by order dated 07.10.2023. The respondent accepted the said appointment as Group-D employee and the respondent is working as such in the petitioner-department.

(c)

Rule 6(4) of the 1996 Rules makes it clear that once the appointment is made under the 1996 Rules, the same would be final and no fresh appointment to a different post or higher post is permissible.

(d)

Rule 6(7) of the 1996 Rules would state that appointment under 1996 Rules shall be made in accordance with the provisions that are prevailing as on the date of the application. The said sub-rule (7) of Rule 6 was inserted by Notification dated 09.04.2021, whereas the respondent's application was dated 06.12.2021. Therefore, in terms of the said Rules, the application of the respondent shall have to be considered as on the date of her application i.e., on 06.12.2021 on which date the respondent possessed the qualification of SSLC. Taking note of the SSLC qualification, the respondent was rightly appointed to Group-D post.

(e)

The Tribunal placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.C. Santhosh's case (supra) to say that consideration of an application for appointment has to be with regard to Rules prevailing on the date of consideration and not on the date of filing the application. Even assuming that Rule applicable as on the date of consideration of the application is taken into consideration, Rule 6(7) was in force. However, the said decision would have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case since subsequent to the said decision Rule 6 is amended and sub-rule (7) is inserted to say that the application for compassionate appointment shall be considered in accordance with the provisions that were prevailing on the date of the application.

(f)

For the reasons recorded above, the Tribunal is not justified in allowing the application. The Circular on which the Tribunal placed reliance would only state that the application for compassionate appointment shall be considered based on the qualification possessed by such candidates. In the instant case, the respondent's application for compassionate appointment was considered on 06.12.2021, taking note of the respondent's qualification as on that date i.e., SSLC.

(g)

The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh2, was considering the case of compassionate appointment and in the course of its order, it is observed that once a right has consummated, any further or second consideration for a higher post on the ground of compassion would not arise. The relevant Paragraphs No. 8 and 9 of the said decision read as under:

“8.

Admittedly the respondent's father died in harness while working as Sub-Inspector, CID (Special Branch) on 16-3-1988. The respondent filed an application on 8-4-1988 for his appointment on compassionate ground as Sub-Inspector or LDC according to the availability of vacancy. On a consideration of his plea, he was appointed to the post of LDC by order dated 14-12-1989. He accepted the appointment as LDC. Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of “endless compassion”. Eligibility to be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police is one thing, the process of selection is yet another thing. Merely because of the so-called eligibility, the learned Single Judge of the High Court was persuaded to the view that direction be issued under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules which has no application to the facts of this case.

9.

Since both the sides relied on Naresh Kumar Bali's case, we will now refer to the same. We had indicated our mind in that very ruling in Paragraph 15 of the said judgment. It reads as under : (SCC p. 452, Para 15)

“Though the respondent claimed that he had applied for the post of a teacher the Subordinate Service Selection Board had not chosen him for the post of teacher because he did not have the requisite qualification. In fact, the respondent did not object to his appointment as a clerk and his claim for consideration for the post of teacher was one year after his appointment. Thus, the appointment on compassionate ground as per the scheme had been completed.” (emphasis supplied) Therefore, once the right has consummated as we indicated earlier, any further or second consideration for a higher post on the ground of compassion would not arise.”

“7.

Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion.

8.

In National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh this Court has stated the law in the following terms : (SCC p. 487, Para 16)

“16.

All public appointments must be in consonance with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Exceptions carved out therefore are the cases where appointments are to be given to the widow or the dependent children of the employee who died in harness. Such an exception is carved out with a view to see that the family of the deceased employee who has died in harness does not become a destitute. No appointment, therefore, on compassionate ground can be granted to a person other than those for whose benefit the exception has been carved out. Other family members of the deceased employee would not derive any benefit thereunder.”

9.

In State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh this Court has categorically stated that once the right is consummated, any further or second consideration for higher post on the ground of compassion would not arise.

12.

Furthermore, the respondent accepted the said post without any demur whatsoever. He, therefore, upon obtaining appointment in a lower post could not have been permitted to turn round and contend that he was entitled for a higher post although not eligible therefor. A person cannot be appointed unless he fulfils the eligibility criteria. Physical fitness being an essential eligibility criteria, the Superintendent of Police could not have made any recommendation in violation of the rules. Nothing has been shown before us that even the petitioner came within the purview of any provisions containing grant of relaxation of such qualification. Whenever, a person invokes such a provision, it would be for him to show that the authority is vested withsuch a power.”

“…. …. ….

3.

Undeniably, the petitioner's husband - Pragya Bhushan Maurya, died in harness on 27.12.2020. Also, it is not disputed to the respondents that arising from such occurrence, the petitioner became entitled to claim appointment on compassionate basis. Further, under the existing policy of the State Government, the petitioner could claim appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher subject to her holding requisite eligibility. Arising from the death of said Pragya Bhushan Maurya on 27.12.2020, the original petitioner/appellant filed her claim on 05.07.2021 with reference to her claim to be appointed Assistant Teacher, the DIOS, Deoria, vide his communication dated 09.01.2023, sought necessary directions from the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj - if the original petitioner/appellant could be granted compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher based on her educational qualification. Vide order dated 28.02.2024, she was found eligibile to compassionate appointment. However, she was offered appointment on a Class IV post.

4.

According to the petitioner, arising from her poor financial condition, she accepted that appointment, against her eligibility to be appointed Assistant Teacher. Thus, she first sought information under Right to Information Act, as to availability of vacant post of Assistant Teachers and thereafter, on 24.06.2025, pressed her claim to be granted compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (and not Class IV post). Since that claim remained undecided, she approached the writ Court by means of Writ - A No. 12986 of 2025 that has given rise to the present intra Court appeal.

5.

Learned single judge has dismissed the writ petition on the strength of Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P., (2022) 17 SCC 280 : AIR 2022 SC 5416 and State of U.P. v. Smt. Premlata, (2022) 1 SCC 30.

6.

Submission is, it is well settled principle -compassionate appointment may be granted commensurate to the status of the deceased employee and the qualifications of the claimant. Reliance has also been placed on Surya Kant Kadam v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 9 SCC 445 wherein it has been observed as below:

“It is undisputed that the date on which the appellant was given a compassionate appointment as Second Division Assistant/Clerk he had the necessary qualification for being appointed as Sub-Inspector of Excise. It is also undisputed that Respondents 3 and 4 were given appointment initially as Second Division Assistant/Clerk but later than the appellant. When the State, therefore, thought it fit to change the post of Respondents 3 and 4 and appointed them to the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise, unless there is any justifiable reason existing, there is no reason as to why the appellant should be treated with hostile discrimination. In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal rejecting the prayer of the appellant for being considered for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise and we direct that the State Government may consider the case of appointment of the appellant as Sub-Inspector of Excise. Be it stated, in the event he is appointed it would be prospective and he will not be entitled to any retrospective benefit. The appeals are allowed accordingly.” (emphasis supplied)

7.

With respect to the decision of Suneel Kumar (supra), it has been submitted, the ratio in that decision is clearly inapplicable to the present case inasmuch as here the deceased was an Assistant Teacher. Petitioner has not sought compassionate appointment on a higher post. In that regard, Supreme Court had observed as below:

“At the same time, as far as the question relating to the entitlement as it were of the appellant to be considered to the post of Gram Panchayat Officer is concerned, it is without doubt a post borne in Class III. The father of the appellant was working as a Sweeper borne in Class IV post. We have noticed the view taken by this Court in Premlata [State of U.P. v. Premlata, (2022) 1 SCC 30 : (2022) 1 SCC (L&S) 13]. In other words, the law as declared is to the effect that the words “suitable employment” in Rule 5 must be understood with reference to the post held by the deceased employee. The superior qualification held by a dependent cannot determine the scope of the words “suitable employment”.” (emphasis supplied)

8.

In Smt. Premlata (supra), again, the principle laid down in Suneel Kumar (supra) has been applied. While considering a suitable post, the status of the deceased employee is a relevant factor as deprive the claimant to claim compassionate appointment on a higher post but equally qualification held by the claimant, may not be disregarded to grant compassionate appointment on a post equivalent to that held by the deceased employees, subject of course to the applicable Scheme benefiting the same.

9.

Learned counsel for the respondents further relied on Director of Town Panchayat v. M Jayabal etc., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2794.

10.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, we do not find the claim of the petitioner to be barred either by the principle of law laid down in Suneel Kumar (supra), Smt. Premlata (supra) and M Jayabal (supra). Undeniably, the original petitioner/appellant holds eligibility qualification - to be appointed Assistant Teacher. That claim has yet not been tested on merits. Second, undeniably, the husband of the present petitioner/appellant did hold the post of Assistant Teacher, on the date of occurrence of his death, on 27.12.2020. Third, it is also not disputed that the original petitioner/appellant had prayed to be granted appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, on compassionate consideration. That is self-apparent form the letter of the DIOS, Deoria dated 09.01.2023. Fourth, thus upon being granted compassionate appointment on Class IV post, on 28.02.2024, the petitioner cannot be seen to have raised a fresh claim - for any higher post. Rather, she had reiterated her original claim - to be appointed Assistant Teacher. To that extent, she remained partially aggrieved by the order granting compassionate appointment dated 28.02.2024. It is that partial grievance which the petitioner sought to ventilate by filing subsequent representation.

11.

To the extent the petitioner had neither made a fresh claim nor waived her right to pursue her original claim - to be granted compassionate appointment, the ratio of M Jayabal (supra) is distinguishable. In that decision, paragraph 20 reads as below:

“20.

With reference to the above enunciation of law, if the facts of the case are considered, M. Jayabal, respondent No. 1 in C.A. No. 12640 of 2025 was appointed on compassionate basis on the post of Sweeper, for which he applied and after joining and working on that post, he applied for a higher post after a gap of three years. Similarly, in the case of S. Veeramani, respondent No. 1 in C.A. No. 12641 of 2025 who was also appointed on compassionate basis on the post of Sweeper, for which he applied and after joining and working on that post, he has applied for the higher post after a gap of nine years.” (emphasis supplied)

12.

Clearly, in that case, the claimant had himself applied to be granted compassionate appointment on the lower grade post – of Sweeper. He was granted that appointment. Thereafter, he not joined and worked on that post. Later, he made a fresh claim, after lapse of three years – seeking appointment to a higher post commensurate to his eligibility. There, the claim for compassionate appointment had been allowed in/all. Later, another claim (for higher post) was made, that too after three years. Such are not the facts, here.

13.

As noted above, the principle of law remains that on the death of an Assistant Teacher, his legal representative may remain entitled to be applied for compassionate appointment as teaching faculty. Here, original petitioner/appellant had applied for such appointment. However, upon being granted compassionate appointment to a Class IV post, her grievance remained partially redressed. To that extent, the original petitioner/appellant pressed her remaining claim, it merits consideration, on its own strength.

14.

Accordingly, the order of the learned single judge suffers from an error on principle. It is accordingly set aside. This special appeal and writ petition are disposed of with the direction upon respondent no. 4 to proceed to dealt with and decide the petitioner's claim on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months, by a reasoned and speaking order.” (Emphasis supplied at each instance)

ORDER