Sri M Chandrashekar v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 32282 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI M CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE MUTHURAYA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS SANTHE MAIDANA BOVI COLONY KOLAR-563101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAGAR B B., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION M.S. BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

¶2THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 9TH FLOOR, PHODIUM BLOCK VISVESHWARAYYA TOWER, PHODIUM BLOCK VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, NEAR COURT CIRCLE KOLAR-517247.

¶4THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KOLAR-517247 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N HCGP FOR R1 TO R3: SMT. VEENA KUMARI M, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 23.09.2025 BEARING NO.1741835/DMA/ ENQ2/BNG2/ 11/2025/2787 ISSUED BY R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

¶1In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the endorsement dated 23.09.2025 issued by respondent No.2 Vide Annexure-H, whereby the petitioner's request for appointment on compassionate ground is rejected on the ground that the petitioner's mother had secured her appointment by producing false documents.

¶2The case of the petitioner is that his grandmother, Smt.Salamma, was working as a Pourakarmika with respondent No.4 and died while in service. Thereafter, Smt.Venkatalakshmamma, the petitioner's mother, applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. Pursuant

thereto, the service benefits of the deceased employee, Smt.Salamma, were disbursed to Smt.Venkatalakshmamma and she was appointed on compassionate grounds. Subsequently, while she was in service, an enquiry was initiated against her on the allegation that she had obtained compassionate appointment by producing false documents. During the pendency of the enquiry and while still in service, Smt. Venkatalakshmamma died. The petitioner, being the legal representative of the deceased Smt.Venkatalakshmamma, submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, he approached this Court in W.P.No.18740/2019. By order dated 07.06.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition, reserving liberty to the respondent No.2 to initiate fresh proceedings, if permissible, with appropriate notice to the petitioner, but within reasonable time of four months from date of disposal of the petition and also clarifying that if not

initiated accordingly, the petitioner shall be entitled to claim the benefits that would otherwise be payable in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 has issued the impugned endorsement dated 23.09.2025 at Annexure-H. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶3A perusal of the impugned endorsement dated

23.09.2025 makes it clear that the same has been issued without affording any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The impugned endorsement is therefore in violation of the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.18740/2019. On this ground alone, the impugned endorsement is liable to be quashed.

¶4Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER a) Writ petition is disposed of.

b) The endorsement dated 23.09.2025 issued by respondent No.2 Vide Annexure-H, is hereby quashed. c) However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate fresh enquiry, if permissible in law, with appropriate notice to the petitioner, within reasonable time of three months from today. d) It is also clarified that if enquiry is not initiated, the petitioner shall be entitled to claim the benefit that would otherwise be payable in accordance with law.

Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 70