Vinayak v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 34678 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:

VINAYAK S/O ASHOK SHIRAHTTI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT 419, 5TH CROSS YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU-560 064 PRESENTLY R/AT NO.301,7TH MAIN, RAVI KIRLOSKAR LAYOUT TUMKUR ROAD BENGALURU-56007 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJ G, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE IN KARNATAKA NO2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶3THE POLICE COMMISSIONER HUBLI-DHARWAD-580 004 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14/06/2024 BEING PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.5144/2023 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.5144/2023 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning order dated 14.06.2024 in Application No.5144/2023, where under, the petitioner's prayer of mandamus to consider his representation dated 17.08.2022 (Annexure - A19) for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

¶2Heard the learned counsel Sri. Nataraj G., for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. K.R. Rajendra, for the respondents.

¶3It is the case of the petitioner that his father was working as Head Constable in police department and while in service he died on 10.08.2014. It is stated that the petitioner is said to have submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment on

06.08.2015. However, his application was not considered. As such, he

made repeated representations to the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment.

¶4Learned counsel for petitioner would specifically submits that writ petitioner made representation dated 17.08.2022 (Annexure - A19) requesting the Authorities to consider his case for compassionate appointment. It is submitted that in the said representation, application of the petitioner dated

06.08.2015 is referred. However, he submits that the application of the petitioner was not considered and no endorsement was issued. Therefore, he was before the Tribunal.

¶5Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in rejecting his application on the ground that the petitioner has not made out any ground to consider his case for compassionate appointment.

¶6On other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner

has not made application within the time prescribed under Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Ground) Rules, 1996. Further, he submits that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right that too after more than 10 years. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶7Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal for the following reasons:

¶8In the State of Karnataka the compassionate appointment is governed by the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Ground) Rules, 1996, Rule 3 would state that the appointment on compassionate grounds under the rules shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a matter of course. Further, Rule 5 requires a dependent of a deceased government servant to make an application seeking

compassionate appointment within one year from the date of death of the government servant and as on the said date he must have attained age of 18 years.

¶9In the instant case, the case of the petitioner is that his father who was working in the police department, died on 10.08.2014 and he is said to have made application on 06.08.2015. There is no evidence or documents to establish that petitioner made application seeking compassionate appointment on

06.08.2015. Further, the petitioner made representation (Annexure - A19) only on 17.08.2022. Annexure - R2 would indicate that by letter dated 26.03.2019 the proposal of the petitioner is returned, noting that the petitioner has not made an application within prescribed time.

¶10Be that as it may, the petitioner cannot seek appointment on compassionate ground as a matter of right. Furthermore, the petitioner is able to sustain himself

for nearly 10 years. The purpose and object of providing compassionate appointment is to sustain themselves on immediate death of government servant or to give financial support to the dependants of the Government servant. If the petitioner is able to survive for nearly 10 years, it is presumed that there is no need for compassionate appointment. merit, therefore, writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9