Shri. Rahul S/O Late Shankar Naik v. The State of Karnataka

NC:,2025:KHC-D:18169-DB, WP(No.(101811(of(2024( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA,(AT(DHARWAD( TH DATED(THIS(THE(15 (DAY(OF(DECEMBER,(2025(

PRESENT(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(G(PANDIT(

(AND((

(THE(HON'BLE(MRS(JUSTICE(GEETHA(K.B.(

WRIT,PETITION,NO.101811,OF,2024,(S-KAT), BETWEEN:(( , SHRI.,RAHUL,, S/O,LATE,SHANKAR,NAIK, AGE.,27,YEARS,,OCC.,NIL,, R/O.,MAHANTESH,NAGAR,,DARGA,COLONY,, NEAR,DARGA,,MAIGUR,ROAD,,JAMAKHANDI-587301., TQ.,JAMAKHANDI,,DIST.,BAGALKOTE., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,SUHAS,K.,HOSAMANI,,ADVOCATE,FOR, SRI.,A.S.,PATIL,,ADVOCATE), , AND:(

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,SECRETARY,, TO,THE,DEPARTMENT,OF,,VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL PUBLIC,WORKS,DEPARTMENT,, Digital ytisignedtiby VISHAL0NINGAPPA M.S.,BUILDING,,BENGALURU-560001., PATTIHAL Location:0HIGH0COURT OF0KARNATAKA , DHARWAD0BENCH

2., THE,CHIEF,ENGINEER,, COMMUNICATION,AND,BUILDING,(NORTH),, SIR.,M.,VISHWESHWARAIAH,ROAD,, D.C.,COMPOUND,,DHARWAD-580001., ,

3., THE,SUPERINTENDENT,ENGINEER,, PUBLIC,WORKS,DEPARTMENT,, BELAGAVI,CIRCLE,,BELAGAVI-590001., , , NC:,2025:KHC-D:18169-DB, WP(No.(101811(of(2024( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

4., THE,EXECUTIVE,ENGINEER,, PUBLIC,WORKS,DEPARTMENT,, DIVISION,OFFICE,,, BAGALKOTE-587103., TQ/DIST.,BAGALKOTE., ,

5., THE,ASSISTANT,EXECUTIVE,ENGINEER,, PUBLIC,WORKS,DEPARTMENT,, JAMAKHANDI,SUB-DIVISION,,, JAMAKHANDI-587301,,, TQ.,JAMAKHANDI,,, DIST.,BAGALKOTE., …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI.,G.K.,HIREGOUDAR,,PRL.,GOVT.,ADVOCATE), , , THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA,, PRAYING, TO, ISSUE, A, WRIT, OF, CERTIORARI, OR, ANY, OTHER, ORDER, OR, DIRECTION, QUASHING,THE,IMPUGNED,ORDER,DATED,11-10-2023,PASSED, BY, THE, HON'BLE, KARNATAKA, STATE, ADMINISTRATIVE, TRIBUNAL, AT, BELAGAVI, IN, APPLICATION, NO.11094/2022, AS, PER, ANNEXURE-C, BY, ALLOWING, THE, APPLICATION, FILED, IN, NO.11094/2022, AND, THE, PRESENT, PETITION, AS, PRAYED, FOR, BY,THE,PETITIONER,&,ETC., ,, , THIS, WRIT, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING,,THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, THE,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,S,G,PANDIT, ,AND,, ,THE,HON'BLE,MRS,JUSTICE,GEETHA,K.B., (

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

Unsuccessful applicant before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi (for short, 'the Tribunal') is before this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 11.10.2023 in Application No.11094/2022, wherein the petitioner's challenge to endorsement rejecting petitioner's request for compassionate appointment was dismissed.

¶2Heard learned counsel Sri.Suhas K. Hosamani for petitioner and learned Principal Government Advocate Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶3The petitioner submits that his father was working as Assistant Engineer in the respondent – Public Works Department and he died while in service on

29.04.2021. On his death, the petitioner is said to have submitted application for compassionate appointment in

terms of the Karnataka Civil Services (appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short, '1996 Rules'). The said application came to be dismissed initially by endorsement dated

12.07.2022 (Annexure-A9). Questioning the said endorsement, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.11094/2022. The Tribunal, considering the relevant rules and taking note of the fact that the petitioner's mother was working as Government Servant and receiving salary more than that of a First Division Assistant, rejected the petitioner's application. Questioning the said order, petitioner is before this Court.

¶4Learned counsel for petitioner Sri.Suhas K. Hosamani would submit that the petitioner and his family is in financial constraints due to illness of mother as well as grandparents. As the petitioner and family, due to the death of the Government Servant are in financial distress, he

would pray for considering the case of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment to any Group-D post.

¶5Learned Principal Government Advocate Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar would submit that in terms of Rule 4(1) of 1996 Rules, the petitioner is not eligible for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment. Further, he submits that, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the income of the mother of the petitioner is more than what is prescribed under Rule 4(1) of 1996 Rules and he submits that the Tribunal is right in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶6Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the endorsement dated

29.04.2021, wherein the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment is rejected.

¶7It is not in dispute that the mother of the petitioner is working as Professor in Government Girls Pre-University College, Jamkhandi, which is a Group-A post. Since the mother of the petitioner is working as Government Servant in a Group-A post and receiving more salary than the First Division Assistant, in terms of Rule 4 of 1996 Rules, the petitioner would not qualify for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶8The Tribunal under impugned order at paragraph

(6) has assigned reasons for rejecting the application of the petitioner. The Tribunal has rightly concluded that the petitioner would not be entitled for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment in terms of Sub-Rule

(1)(b)(ii) of Rule 4 of 1996 Rules.

¶9The contention of petitioner that the family is in financial distress due to medical emergency of mother as

well as grandparents is not a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Rule 4(1) of 1996 Rules is clear with regard to eligibility and income criteria.

¶10Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected.

¶11In view of rejection of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2024 for dispensation of production of translation copies of Annexures would not survive for consideration.

Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE

NC, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31