COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS Vs. K R VISHWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-State and its functionaries call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court holding that the respondent was entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. By the impugned judgment the view expressed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (in short Tribunal) about such entitlement of the respondent was upheld.

(2.) Factual position is almost undisputed and needs to be noted in brief: Respondents father Ramachandra Narayan Bhat who was a Government servant died on 21-12-1977.The respondent was born on 20-10-1977 and was hardly two months old at the time when his father expired. He attained majority on 20-10-1995. He submitted an application on 2-12-1996 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds purportedly under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1990 (in short the Rules). The said application on 11/13-11-1997 was rejected on the ground that the application had not been filed within time i.e. within one year of attaining majority. Another application was filed on 22-4-1998 which was not entertained. Certain amendments were made to the Rules by the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1998 (in short Amendment Rules) which were operative with effect from 1-4-1999. Respondent filed another application on 29-11-1999. The same was rejected on 9-6-2000 by stating that no application was pending on the date when Amendment Rules came into force and, therefore, the Rules as amended had no application to his case. The respondent approached the Tribunal questioning the order of rejection. By order dated 19-9-2001 Tribunal allowed the petition and directed the present appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds without regard to any period of limitation referred to in the letter dated 9-6-2000.

(3.) The appellants questioned correctness of Tribunals decision before the High Court. As noted above, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.