By Its Secretary to Government Water Resources Department Ms B Uilding Bengaluru 560001 v. Sri Kallappa Gurupadappa Dawanageri Aged About 68 Years S/O Gurupadappa Retired Group of D

Order dated

11.02.2013. Immediately, thereafter on

19.06.2013, the second respondent made an application requesting for compassionate appointment on first respondent's retirement on medical grounds. The said representation was rejected under endorsements dated

11.07.2014, 30.10.2014 and 19.02.2016. However, the respondents approached the Tribunal by filing an application in the year 2019. There was a delay of one year 8 months as noted by the Tribunal in approaching the Tribunal by the respondents.

¶9The application for condonation of delay under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was filed. The affidavit was sworn by second respondent i.e. son of the first respondent. In his affidavit, he stated that due to ill-health of first respondent and on regaining good health, they approached the Tribunal by filing the aforesaid application. On the face of it, the said cause is false as the

first respondent-father of the second respondent had died on 15.01.2015 itself. The death of the first respondent on

15.01.2015 is not disputed by second respondent. When the first respondent had died in the year 2015 itself, the application could not have been filed on behalf of first respondent before the Tribunal. The second respondent has sworn to a false affidavit stating ill-health of his father, first respondent. A person who files false affidavit and who approaches the Court with unclean hands would not be entitled for any relief.

¶10A person who resorts to filing of such false affidavits before entering into Government service would be ineligible for any Government Employment. The employer or the Government cannot expect diligent or honest work from a person who, at the time of initial appointment itself seeks employment on false affidavit. As the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay is false and the application before the Tribunal was filed more than 5 years after the death of first applicant, the delay cannot be

condoned and application for condonation of delay requires to be rejected. Consequently, the application also stands rejected.

¶11For the reasons recorded above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER 1) The writ petition is allowed. 2) The impugned order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi in Application Nos.2043 and 2044/2019 by order dated

24.06.2022 vide Annexure-A is set aside. 3) Application Nos.2043 and 2044/2019 filed before the Tribunal are rejected.

Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE HMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND 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. 100075 OF 2023 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU 560001 BENGALURU 560001. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, CADA, (MALAPRABHA GHATAPRABHA PROJECT BELGAVI) BELAGAVI-560001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI KALLAPPA GURUPADAPPA DAWANAGERI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O. GURUPADAPPA RETIRED GROUP OF D, O/O ADMINISTRATOR, CADA, M.G. PROJECT BELGAVI, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.09 10:17:00 +0530 NC:(2025:KHC-D:17029-DB( WP(No.(100075(of(2023( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( R/O.,NO.163,,OLD,GANDHI,NAGAR-590016,,, OPP.,MARUTI,TEMPLE,,BELAGAVI., SINCE,,DECEASED,BY,HIS,LRS,RESPONDENT,NO.2, DELETED,VIDE,ORDER,DATED:02.12.2025., , 2., SRI,SOMASHEKAR,K.,DAWANGERI,, AGED,ABOUT,33,YEARS,, S/O.,KALLAPPA,DAWANGERI,, RETIRED,GROUP,D,O/O,ADMINISTRATOR,, CADA,,M.G.,PROJECT,,BELGAVI,,, R/O.,NO.163,,OLD,GANDHI,NAGAR-5900116,,, OPP.,MARUTI,TEMPLE,,BELAGAVI., …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,, SRI,SHARANABASAVARARJU,C.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2;, R1-,DEAD,R2,IS,LRS,OF,R1), , , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,,PRAYING,TO,ISSUE,,A,WRIT,IN,THE, NATURE, OF, CERTIORARI, TO, QUASH, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, PASSED,BY,THE,KARNATAKA,STATE,ADMINISTRATIVE,TRIBUNAL, AT, BELAGAVI, IN, APPLICATION, NO.2043, AND, 2044/2019, BY, ORDER,DATED,24.06.2022,VIDE,ANNEXURE-A., , , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, 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) The State in Water Resources Department is before this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 24.06.2022 passed in application Nos.2043 and 2044/2019 by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi (for short 'Tribunal') whereunder, the respondent's prayer for compassionate appointment on his father's retirement on medical invalidation is allowed directing the State authorities to appoint respondent No.2 on compassionate grounds. 2. Heard learned Prl. Government Advocate Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar for appellant and Sri.Sharanabasavaraju C. Advocate for respondent No.2 and perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned AGA would submit that the father of respondent No.2 was working as Group–D employee in Second petitioner's office and at his request he was permitted to retire on medical invalidation under order dated 11.02.2013 under Rule 273 of KCSR. It is submitted that second applicant made a representation on 19.06.2013 seeking compassionate ground appointment on his father's retirement on medical ground. The request of the second applicant was rejected on 11.07.2014 and subsequently one more endorsement dated 30.10.2014 is also rejected and again on the representation of the second respondent one more endorsement dated 19.02.2016 was issued to second respondent rejecting his request for compassionate appointment. The second respondent aggrieved by the endorsement rejecting his request for compassionate appointment on his father's medical invalidation, approached the Tribunal in the above stated applications along with his father. There was delay of nearly one year eight months in approaching the Tribunal from the date of last endorsement and along with the application it is stated that the second respondent has filed application under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The cause shown for condonation of delay was that, due to ill- health of first respondent, on regaining good health, they approached the Tribunal in the above stated applications. The Tribunal taking note of the ill-health of the first respondent, condoned the d