SUNDARAMMA Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1 is the 1st wife of a certain R. Munikrishna and petitioner No. 2 is their daughter. The said R. Munikrishna while in service as SDA in the office of the High Court of karnataka, has died on 13. 4. 1999. He had taken a 2nd wife by name Smt. Ashwathamma and through her, he has two children. After taking the 2ndwife, the said R. Munikrishna had deserted the petitioners and hence the petitioner No. 1 had filed a petition seeking maintenance from him in C. Misc. No. 240/90, both for herself and for her daughter, the 2ndpetitioner. In that petition, they were awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 150/- respectively. After the death of the said R. Munikrishna, certain dispute arose between the petitioners and the above said Smt. Ashwathamma regarding the properties left behind the deceased, which was stated to have been decided or adjudicated in P and SC No. 27/03. Aggrieved thereby, the above said Smt. Ashwathamma and her two children had preferred an appeal in MFA No. 3982/2003 which was referred to the Lok Adalat. The same has ended in a compromise between the parties as per the award dated 6. 1. 2005. As per the award of the Lok Adalath, it is stated that the 2ndpetitioner was entitled to secure the appointment on compassionate grounds. While this was so, it is stated that the petitioner No. 1 had made an application for being appointed on compassionate grounds on 5. 5. 1999 and since there was no response to the said application from the office of the High Court, the 2ndpetitioner after she has attained majority on 16. 8. 2000 made another application seeking appointment to her on compassionate grounds on 4. 11. 2000. Since there was also no response to this application by the office of the High Court, the 1st petitioner claims to have sent another application on 21. 8. 2001 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds for her daughter, the petitioner No. 2. Thereafter, it is stated that the petitioners have received the communication dated 9. 12. 2005 as per Annexure-D indicating therein that the 2nd petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of Rule-5 of the karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. The 2nd petitioner claims to have been aggrieved by the said endorsement-Annexure-D. That is to say, it is the 2nd petitioner who is aggrieved by such endorsement and not the petitioner No. 1. But however they have both filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash that part of the impugned endorsement at annexure-D which declines appointment on compassionate grounds to the 2nd petitioner and consequently to direct the office of the High Court to appoint the 2nd petitioner on compassionate grounds.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up for preliminary hearing on 23. 6. 2006, it was heard for some time and the learned Counsel for the petitioners sought for adjournment to seek further instructions from the petitioners and accordingly, the matter was adjourned and it was directed to be listed on 26. 6. 2006. Then when the matter came up for preliminary hearing on 26. 6. 2006, the petitioners have come out with an interim application under Order-6 Rule-17 of CPC seeking leave to amend the writ petition so as to challenge the constitutional validity of the amended proviso to rule-5 of the Rules as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to strike down the same.

(3.) WE have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners both on the writ petition as well as on the interim application filed by the petitioners at a considerable length and carefully perused the relevant case papers in the light of the relevant Rules and the judgments of the single Bench of this Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. He has relied upon the following decisions: