LAWS(KAR)-2012-6-228

SHILPA Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

Decided On June 19, 2012
SHILPA Appellant
V/S
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's father by name Maltesh Krishnarao Kulkarni, while working as First Division Assistant in the Office of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Ron, Dist: Gadag, died on 09.05.2001 leaving him surviving two daughters, the petitioner and another Kumari Poornima. Petitioner was born on 18.10.1985 and a minor on the date of death of her father. Having made an application dated 11.02.2002, Annexure-A to the first respondent to provide a suitable appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules') by communication dated 01.10.2002, Annexure-B.

(2.) Petitioner having attained majority on 18.10.2003, filed another application dated 06.01.2004, Annexure-C for appointment on compassionate grounds. That application when rejected by Letter dated 31.10.2011, Annexure-N of the 2nd respondent, was informed by Letter dated 10.01.2012, Annexure-P of the 4th respondent, on the ground that the earlier application was rejected, since it did not satisfy Rule 9(3) of the Rules and another application for the very same appointment on compassionate ground could not be considered. Hence this petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Manjunath M. Lala Sangi vs. The Registrar General W.P. No. 34695/2000, Dated: 27.02.2004, Annexure-Q, petitioner's application Annexure-C deserves reconsideration, more so, in the light of the 3rd Amendment to Rule 9(3) of the Rules w.e.f. 29.05.2002. Learned Counsel submits that petitioner, though attained majority on 18.10.2003, nevertheless, having made an application on 11.02.2002, Annexure-A within one year of death of her father, though a minor on that date, nevertheless, the first respondent ought to have considered and extended an appointment on compassionate grounds.