BASAVARAJ FAKIRAPPA MANVI Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition under Article-226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought the relief in the nature of Writ of Mandamus being issued in his favour directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground for the appropriate post in K.S.R.T.C., and for issuance of such other Writ, Order or. Direction in the ends of Justice demand.

(2.) In this case appearance has been put on behalf of the respondents by Sri S.V. Jagannath, an Advocate of this Court. No counter affidavit has been filed in this case. The factual position appears to be admitted, which appears from the Writ Petition. According to the petitioner's case the father of the petitioner namely Sri Fakirappa Manvi was working as a Traffic Controller in K.S.R.T.C., Sirsi Division, Sirsi, Uttara Kannada District. According to the petitioner's case the above mentioned petitioner's father while in service had died on December 6, 1990, leaving behind him, his widow and 4 sons. The petitioner claims to be the eldest son of deceased Fakirappa Manvi and alleged that he has been shouldering the responsibility of looking after his widowed mother and two younger brothers that had fallen on his shoulders on the demise of his father Sri Faktrappa Manvi. Petitioner's case is that his father died while in service and as such he has been entitled to claim and to get an appointment in K.S.R.T.C., on compassionate ground. The petitioner has stated that he has completed B.Com., Degree Course from Karnataka University in the year 1984-85. The petitioner further alleged to have completed Kannada and English Typing course and that he had also undergone Apprenticeship in D.M.E., Section of. K.S.R.T.C., Sirsi Division. The petitioner has further averred that petitioner's mother i.e., the widow of Sri Fakirappa Manvi (deceased) made a representation to the respondents seeking appointment of the petitioner, being the eldest son of the deceased on compassionate ground. But the Regional Manager, K.S.R.T.C., Hubli Division, refused to grant appointment to the petitioner vide., endorsement date 24-6-1992 for the reason as mentioned in the endorsement that second son of the deceased i.e., the younger brother of the petitioner namely Ashok Fakirappa Manvi was in service though it is mentioned therein that Ashok Fakirappa Manvi had been appointed in the life time of the father Fakirappa Manvi on the basis of his selection on merits. The petitioner had annexed the copies of death certificate and the marks card for B.Com., Examination as Annexures-A and B to the Petition and the copy of the representation made by the mother of the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure-C to the Writ Petition. The endorsement of the respondent dated 24-6-92 has also been annexed as Annexure-D to the Writ Petition. According to the petitioner's case Ashok Fakirappa Manvi - the second son of the deceased employee had been appointed in the life time of deceased employee Fakirappa Manvi and on the ground of his merits or on the basis of his selection on merits. It has been averred that Ashok Fakirappa Manvi is living separately with his wife and children i.e., Ashok Fakirappa Manvi was major and was earning as an independent person standing on his own legs, at the time of the demise of his father Fakirappa Manvi. The petitioner has also annexed the copy of the Official Memorandum dealing with the subject of appointment on compassionate ground and it has also been stated that the petitioner and his mother have been making representations after representations to the respondents claiming petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground and it has also been mentioned that by communication letter dated 29-2-1992, the Minister for Transport and Wakf Board, of the State of Karnataka had directed the concerned official to take appropriate action, but the respondents failed to take any action and they were avoiding the claim of the petitioner on one pretext or other. The petitioner thereafter gave a legal notice to the respondents on 4-1-1994 and then by letter dated 8-3-1994 the respondents replied the petitioner and brought to the notice of the petitioner that since a younger brother of the petitioner had already been working in K.S.R.T.C., the petitioner's case under "Dying in Harness Scheme", could not be considered for appointment on compassionate ground, as appointment under such Scheme can be provided only once as to one member of the family of an employee dying in harness if no other member of his family is employed in Class-Ill or IV post. The copy of the letter dated 8-3-94 had been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-G to the Writ Petition. The petitioner appears to have taken cause of action for filing this Petition on the basis of this letter dated 8-3-94, Annexure-G to the Writ Petition.

(3.) I have heard Sri M. Sudhakar Pai, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S.V. Jagannath, Counsel for respondents at some length.