Mahesh S/O Yadu Naik v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT APPEAL NO.100291 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: MAHESH S/O YADU NAIK AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. HONNEKERI, ANKOLA, TQ. ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581314. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARAYAN V. YAJI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VIDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶2THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, RODDA ROAD, DHARWAD-580008.

¶3THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, KARWAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.19 10:06:51 +0530 NC:,2025:KHC-D:17836-DB, WA(No.(100291(of(2024( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

4., THE,BLOCK,EDUCATION,OFFICER,, ANKOLA,,DIST.,UTTARA,KANNADA-581314., ,

5., JAI,HIND,EDUCATION,SOCIETY,, BY,ITS,SECRETARY,,ANKOLA,, DIST.,UTTARA,KANNADA-581314., ,

6., THE,HEAD,MASTER,, JAI,HIND,HIGH,SCHOOL,,ANKOLA,, DIST.,UTTARA,KANNADA-581314., …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI.,G.K.,HIREGOUDAR,,PRL.,GOVT.,ADVOCATE), , , THIS, WRIT, APPEAL, IS, FILED, UNDER, SEC.4, OF, KARNATAKA, HIGH, COURT, ACT,, 1961,, PRAYING, TO, SET, ASIDE, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, PASSED, BY, THE, LEARNED, SINGLE, JUDGE, IN, WRIT, PETITION, NO.103267/2024,, (S-RES), DATED, 11-06-2024, AS, IT, IS, ILLEGAL, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, GRANT, THE, RELIEF, AS, PRAYED, BY, THE, PETITIONER,IN,THE,ABOVE,WRIT,PETITION,&,ETC., ,, , THIS, WRIT, APPEAL, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING,, THIS, DAY,, JUDGMENT, WAS, DELIVERED,, THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, THE,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,S,G,PANDIT, ,AND,, ,THE,HON'BLE,MRS,JUSTICE,GEETHA,K.B., (

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

Unsuccessful petitioner before the learned single judge is in appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 aggrieved by the order dated 11.06.2024 in W.P.No.103267/2024, whereunder the petitioner's challenge to rejection of request for compassionate appointment is rejected.

¶2Heard learned counsel Sri.N.V.Yaji for appellant and learned AGA Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar, Prl. Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶3Learned counsel Sri.N.V.Yaji for petitioner would submit that the brother of the petitioner was working at 6th respondent-High school as group-'D' employee. He died while in service on 08.05.2023. Subsequent to his death, the petitioner is said to have submitted application dated

06.08.2023 seeking compassionate appointment on the death of his brother. His request for compassionate

appointment was rejected by the respondent No.4-B.E.O. under communication dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure-H) on the ground that the petitioner was overaged as on the date of submitting application for compassionate appointment. Questioning the said endorsement, the petitioner was before the learned single judge in the above stated writ petition. Learned single judge under impugned order dated

11.06.2024 dismissed the writ petition holding that under Rule 4(2) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules 1996, the petitioner would not be entitled for compassionate ground appointment.

¶4Learned counsel Sri.N.V.Yaji would contend that the petitioner belongs to backward class community and relaxation of age for Government appointments is provided. Taking note of such relaxation, the respondent authorities ought to have considered the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that the object of providing compassionate appointment is to see that the family of deceased government servant comes out

of financial difficulties on the death of the bread earner of the family. In that circumstance, the respondents-authorities ought to have considered the application of the petitioner for providing compassionate ground appointment.

¶5On the other hand, learned AGA would submit that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground since he is overaged. He submits that as on the date of submitting application for compassionate appointment, the petitioner was aged 47 years. It is submitted that even for compassionate appointment, the candidates shall be within the age limit prescribed under the (Cadre and Recruitment Rules) or under the Karnataka Civil Services(General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (Hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1977'). He submits that under Rules 1977 Rules, the prescribed age for general candidate is 35 years, for backward classes candidate 38 years and for SC-ST candidate 40 years. Thus, he submits that the petitioner would not qualify for

appointment on compassionate ground. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶6Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petitioner papers, we are of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for interference with the order passed by learned single judge.

¶7It is the case of the petitioner that his brother was working as Group-'D' employee in 6th respondent-High school and his brother died while in service on 08.05.2023. Subsequent to his death, the petitioner is said to have submitted application on

16.02.2023 seeking compassionate appointment. The date of birth of the petitioner being 01.06.1976, as on the date of making application for compassionate appointment, the petitioner was aged 47 years. Rule 4(2)of 1996 Rules Prescribes age limit for compassionate appointment and it would state that a person seeking appointment for compassionate ground shall be within the age limit specified for the post in the

relevant Rules of recruitment specifically made or shall be within the age limit prescribed under sub-Rule(3) of Rule 6 of Rules 1977. Rules 1977 would prescribe age limit of 35 years for general merit candidates and 38 years for backward class candidates and 40 years for SC-ST candidates. Since, the petitioner was aged 47 years as on the date of making application for compassionate ground appointment; the petitioner is ineligible in terms of Rule 4(2) of 1996 Rules. The learned single judge is justified in dismissing the writ petition, holding that the petitioner would not be qualified for appointment on compassionate ground since he is overaged. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the petition, stands rejected.

Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE HMB, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32