PRIYANKA HALAMANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks to call in question the Service Tribunal's order dtd. 4/1/2024 whereby petitioner's Application No.10005/2024 has been negatived. The grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was the non-consideration of her candidature for compassionate appointment.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in his usual vehemence submits that the definition of 'family' given under Rule 2(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 2021, in order to be saved from the vice of arbitrariness has to be construed to include daughter-in- law of the family and if that is done, the petitioner would get employment on compassionate ground. In support of this, he presses into service a Full Bench decision of Alhabad High Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., vs. Urmila Devi,2011 SCC OnLine All 152, para-8.

(3.) Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Official Respondents passionately resists the petition contending that the doctrine of separation of power is recognized as a Basic Feature of the Constitution vide Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs. Shri Raj Narayan,AIR 1975 SC 2299; the rules in question being made by the delegate of the legislature need to be shown due deference by the co-ordinate organs of the State namely the judiciary; the Rule Maker in his wisdom has not included daughter-in-law in the definition of 'family' consciously; that being the position adding daughter-in-law to the definition would virtually amount to manhandling the law which is impermissible. In support of his contention, he relies upon a Co-Ordinate Bench decision in Pallavi G.M. vs. Managing Director, Karnataka Power Transmission Company Limited (KPTCL) Cauvery Bhavan and others,2023 SCC OnLine KAR 61.