BHARATI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a widow of one Sadanand Gundappa Gadad, who was working as a waterman in the office of the Town Municipal Council, Mudalgi, Taluk: Gokak and died in harness on 11.02.2000. Petitioner being a graduate, submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. She was appointed as a Second Division Assistant on 14.12.2000. She accepted the said appointment without any demur. She, however, after more than a decade, submitted a representation dated 26.03.2011, to reconsider and appoint her as a First Division Assistant. Alleging inaction on the part of the respondents, this writ petition has been filed, to direct the respondents to appoint her in the cadre of FDA instead of the appointment made on 14.12.2000 in the cadre of SDA. Sri R.K. Kulkarni, Learned Advocate, contended that the respondents ought to have considered the representation submitted by the petitioner in the light of an order passed in the case of H.N. Guruprasad vs. The Director of Municipal Corporation and Others W.P. 32634/2003, dated 14.06.2006, which was upheld by a judgment passed on 28.01.2009 in W.A. 2060/2006. He submitted that the petitioner possessed the qualification of a Degree as on the date on which she submitted the application for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds and contended that the appointment made on 14.12.2000 is not commensurate with the academic qualification possessed by the petitioner and that the inaction of the respondents in taking a decision on the representation is arbitrary. He further contended that there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, since the respondents have granted appointments commensurate to the educational qualification to similarly placed persons and have unjustly meted discriminatory treatment to the petitioner.

(2.) Smt. Megha C. Kolekar, Learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand submitted that the petitioner having accepted the post of SDA on 14.12.2000 and having worked for more than a decade is estopped from claiming the higher post of FDA, which is a promotional post based on seniority cum fitness. She contended that appointment once made under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 ("Rules" for short), shall be final and no fresh appointment to a different post or higher post is permissible. She submitted that while deciding W.P. 32634/2003, sub-Rule (4) of Rule 6 has not been brought to the notice of the Court and hence, the petitioner cannot claim support on the basis of the order passed in the said case. She further submitted that the principles of acquiescence are attracted and that the petitioner has no legal right and the respondents having no corresponding legal obligation, the petition for issue of writ of mandamus is not maintainable.

(3.) Grant of appointment to a dependent of an employee who died in harness is governed by the scheme of the Rules. Petitioner's husband died in harness on 11.02.2000. Petitioner being a graduate, applied for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. Considering the claim, respondent No. 2 issued an order of appointment dated 14.12.2000, whereby, the petitioner was appointed as SDA. The petitioner having worked in the said post, after lapse of 10 years, submitted a representation dated 26.03.2011, to appoint her in the cadre of FDA, instead of SDA. In support of the claim, reliance was placed on the order passed in the case of H.N. GURUPRASAD .