SHRI R NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is calling in question the endorsement dated 31-10-2003 issued by the 3rd respondent- The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, a copy of which is produced at annexure-C, rejecting his request for appointment on compassionate ground. He has further sought for a direction to the respondents to provide him an appointment to any of the Group-B post on compassionate ground in view of the death of his father in harness.

(2.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that his father Sri R. Rangaswamy who was working as group-D employee in the M. E. S. College, Bangalore, died on 13. 4. 1999 while he was in service. At the time of the death of his father the petitioner was a minor. He attained the age of majority on 26. 11. 2000. Immediately after attaining the age of majority, he applied seeking appointment on compassionate ground. When his representation was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W. P. No. 44854/2001. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 21. 12. 2001 directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks and pass appropriate orders thereon. In spite of a direction being issued by this Court, when the respondents did not consider the request, petitioner made another representation on 20. 8. 2003. Thereafter, the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, has issued the endorsement dated 31. 10. 2003 as per Annexure-C informing him that there is no provision to provide appointment on compassionate ground. The endorsement rejecting the request for compassionate appointment is issued on the basis of the Government Order dated 1. 3. 2001, a copy of which is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-D.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that by the Government Orders dated 25. 3. 1987 and 28. 11. 1998, copies of which are produced at Annexures-E and F respectively, the Rules of recruitment framed by the State Government known as Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Ground) Rules, 1996 are made applicable to the Private aided educational institutions. These Government Orders have not been withdrawn and they still hold the field. That being the position, the counsel contends the Government Order dated 1. 3. 2001 cannot be made applicable to deny appointment on compassionate ground. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the Government Order dated 1. 3. 2001 is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the death of the father of the petitioner has taken place on 13. 4. 1999 and the application itself was submitted by the petitioner prior to the issue of the said government Order dated 1. 3. 2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the Government Order dated 1. 3. 2001 is unjust, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on several judgments of the Apex Court to contend that a request for compassionate appointment deserves to be considered immediately as the very purpose of providing such an appointment is to come to the aid of the family which is in distress.