KSHIRALINGA M. BANSODE Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, (HIGHER EDUCATION) BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY AND GULBARGA UNIVERSITY BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's father when appointed as a Second Divisional Assistant (for short 'SDC') in the 2nd respondent University, reportedly died on 20.10.1997, were afterwards , the mother of the petitioner is said to have made an application on 20.01.1998 for appointment of the petitioner, a minor then, on attaining majority on compassionate grounds stating that she was not qualified for any job. The 2nd respondent by a reply dated 06.07.1998 informed that the application could be considered only after the petitioner attains the age of 18 years and an application is filed in that regard within one year from the date of attaining majority. Petitioner is said to have attained the age of majority on 10.10.2002. Where afterwards , on 28.10.2002, made an application for appointment to the post of SDC on compassionate grounds. The 2nd respondent is said to have addressed a letter dated 25.08.2003 to the 1st respondent to issue suitable or appropriate directions in the matter, in the light of the amendment to the proviso to Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2000 (for short 'Rules'). There afterwards , on 10.08.2004, the 2nd respondent appointed the petitioner to the post of SDC, which when communicated to the petitioner, a letter dated 23.02.2005 was addressed to the 1st respondent to approve the appointment. The 1st respondent by letter dated 23.02.2005 addressed to the 2nd respondent, directed to show cause as to why the appointment of the petitioner by order dated 10.08.2004 should not be cancelled, since in violation of the Government Order dated 28.05.2002. That letter was followed by yet another letter dated 28.07.2005 of the 1st respondent, informing the 2nd respondent of the order of this Court in W.P. No. 32699/2004, W.A. No. 2899/2004 and that the appointment of one Ravikumar being against the KCSR Rules, 1996 directed the 2nd respondent to cancel the appointment of that Ravikumar and the Resolution of the Syndicate dated 28.07.2004 to appoint the petitioner. The 1st respondent yet again, by correspondence dated 01.07.2008, directed the 2nd respondent to cancel the appointment of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent unmindful of the directions and the law declared by this Court, went about declaring the probation of the petitioner to the post of SDC in the Department of Zoology on 24.08.2010, in terms of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probationy) Rules 1977. The 1st respondent in its letter dated 28.02.2011, directing the 2nd respondent to cancel the appointment of the petitioner and to inform the action taken as also annul the Resolution of the Syndicate dated 09.09.2008. It is only there afterwards , on 31.05.2011, the 2nd respondent convened the meeting of the Syndicate, wherein the Syndicate resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner after giving one month's notice following which, by order dated 01.08.2011, petitioner's services were terminated with effect from 31.08.2011. Hence, this petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) RULE 5 of the Rules as amended by the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2000 provides that every dependent of a deceased Government servant, seeking appointment under the rules shall make an application within one year from the date of death of the Government servant, in such form, as may be notified by the Government, from time to time, to the Head of the Department under whom the deceased Government servant was working.

(3.) THE interpretation of the aforesaid provision of law having come up for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in K.M. Prakash v. State of Karnataka and Another : 2008 (2) Kar.LJ. 222 (DB), held that the Rule Making Authority, in its wisdom, stipulated a period of one year from the death of the employee within which the minor should have attained majority and thereafter he should make an application for appointment on compassionate grounds within a period of one year, such a prescription cannot be regarded as arbitrary or illegal, nor can it be characterised as one violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.