Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Santosh Yamanappa Wadakar, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, seeking to quash an endorsement dated 20.09.2024 issued by respondent No. 6 (Additional Commissioner, School Education Department, Dharwad) rejecting his application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his application for employment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner's father had been an employee, and upon his death, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. The impugned endorsement rejected the application without considering the relevant scheme or providing any reasons. The court observed that the endorsement was a non-speaking order and suffered from non-application of mind. The court quashed the endorsement and directed respondent No. 6 to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The court also directed that the petitioner be heard before passing the fresh order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Non-application of Mind - The impugned endorsement rejecting the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was set aside as it did not consider the scheme under which the application was made, nor did it provide any reasons for rejection. The court held that the authority must apply its mind to the facts and provisions before passing an order. (Paras 1-4) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash an order that was passed without application of mind and directed the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh within a stipulated time. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned endorsement dated 20.09.2024 rejecting the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 20.09.2024 is quashed. Respondent No. 6 is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Non-application of mind
- Writ of Certiorari
- Writ of Mandamus
- Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
