Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Girish S/o Vinayak K Muttatti, filed a writ appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition seeking compassionate appointment. The appellant's father, a government employee, died in harness. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. His application was rejected by the respondents on the ground that he was a major son and the family was not in indigent circumstances. The appellant challenged the rejection and also sought to strike down Rule 3(3) of the Rules. The Single Judge dismissed the petition. In appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment and is intended to provide immediate relief to the family in financial distress. The court found that the appellant, being a major son, was not entitled to compassionate appointment as the family's financial condition was not precarious. The court upheld Rule 3(3) as valid and not ultra vires. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Rule 3(3) of Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 - Major Son - The appellant, a major son, sought compassionate appointment after his father's death. The court held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is only available to alleviate indigency. Since the appellant was a major and the family was not shown to be in indigent circumstances, the claim was rejected. Rule 3(3) was upheld as valid. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, a major son, is entitled to compassionate appointment under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, and whether Rule 3(3) of the said Rules is ultra vires.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.06.2021 in WP No. 107136/2018 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is not a vested right
- Rule 3(3) of Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules
- 1996
- major son not entitled to compassionate appointment if family not indigent
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (11) 56
WA No. 100362 of 2022 (GM-RES)
Suraj Govindaraj, G Basavaraja
Shravan Madhav K.P., Dhanya K.S. (for appellant), Praveen Uppar, HCGP (for respondents)
Girish S/o Vinayak K Muttatti
State of Karnataka, Department of Personal Administrative Reforms, The Director Prosecution, Legal Officer (Senior) Department of Prosecution, Assistant Public Prosecutor
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against dismissal of writ petition seeking compassionate appointment and challenging Rule 3(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the order of the Single Judge, strike down Rule 3(3), issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to issue appointment order on compassionate grounds, and quash endorsements rejecting his application.
Filing Reason
Appellant's father died in harness; appellant applied for compassionate appointment but was rejected on the ground that he was a major son and family was not indigent.
Previous Decisions
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition (WP No. 107136/2018) on 24.06.2021.
Issues
Whether the appellant is entitled to compassionate appointment under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996?
Whether Rule 3(3) of the said Rules is ultra vires?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that he is entitled to compassionate appointment as his father died in harness and he is the only earning member.
Respondents contended that the appellant being a major son and the family not being in indigent circumstances, the claim is not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is only available to alleviate the financial distress of the family. A major son is not entitled to compassionate appointment if the family is not in indigent circumstances. Rule 3(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 is valid.
Judgment Excerpts
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is only available to alleviate the financial distress of the family.
A major son is not entitled to compassionate appointment if the family is not in indigent circumstances.
Procedural History
The appellant filed WP No. 107136/2018 before the High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 24.06.2021. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: Section 4
- Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996: Rule 3(3)
