VASANTH J Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the endorsement issued on 11. 11. 2003 and 04. 06. 2004 vide Annexures-H and J rejecting the request made for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The claim for compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground that as per sub Rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate grounds) Rules 1996, (for short' the Rules) there is no provision for grant of compassionate appointment to the step children of the deceased.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the legal point that is canvassed by the Counsel for the petitioner, few facts which will have bearing on the question raised can be referred to. Petitioner is the son of Smt. Janakamma born out of the wedlock between Smt. Janakamma and her first husband. After the death of the father of the petitioner Smt. Janakamma contracted another marriage with one S. Keriyappa on 24. 04. 1986. This was a registered marriage. It is claimed that at the time of this marriage, the petitioner was already 10 years old. Petitioner was staying along with his mother and his step father Sri. S. Keriyappa. In support of the same, he has produced ration card and identity card. He claims that in all respects, he was treated as a son of Sri. S. Keriyappa from the date of the marriage. Sri. S. Keriyappa, the step father of the petitioner was working as a second Division Assistant in the office of the Taluk Panchayat, sagar. He died in harness on 12. 04. 2001 leaving behind his wife Smt. Janakamma, one son born out of their wedlock and the petitioner herein as a step son. After the death of Keriappa, petitioner gave a representation seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The mother of the petitioner, on her behalf and also on behalf of her second son Prashanth, who was a minor, filed an affidavit dated 13. 11. 2001 stating that they had no objection to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. This application is rejected by the respondents on the ground that there was no provision for compassionate appointment in favour of a step son.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner attacking the endorsement issued submits that the provisions contained in Rule 2 of the Rules if read keeping in mind the object and purpose for which they have been enacted would make it very clear that even a step son is entitled for claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. Sri M. N. Prasanna Counsel appearing along with Sri. Raghavendra, R Hogade, appearing for the petitioner have painstakingly canvassed this proposition taking support from number of judgments rendered by the Apex Court in this regard. As the petitioner is the only major son in the family eligible to claim appointment, his claim ought to have preferred is what is urged. The counsel contends that the rejection of the claim on the ground that he is a step son is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules. He further submits that while the Rule making authority has advisedly excluded an adopted son or an adopted daughter of the deceased Government servant from claiming appointment under the Rules a step son is not so excluded, which, by implication suggests that a step son is entitled to claim appointment on compassionate grounds. He also submits that what is required to be looked into is whether the step son was dependant upon the deceased and was living with him at the time when the death occurred. If these essential concomitants are satisfied then denial of appointment on the ground that he was a step son would be resorting-to a pedantic and wooden approach in construing, the provision. Citing several judgments pertaining to interpretation of statutes, Learned Counsel has submitted that literal construction of the provision should not be resorted to as the Court must always look to the object and purpose of the legislation. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of mines and Another Vs Ramjee, (1977) 2 SCC 256 and Seaford Court Estates Ltd. , Vs Asher (1949) 2 All England Law Reports 155. He draws particular attention of the Court to the observations made at page 164 to the following effect. "whenever a statute comes up for consideration it must be remember that it is not within human powers to foresee the manifolds sets of facts which may arise, and, even if it were, it is not possible to provide for them in terms free from all ambiguity. The English language is not an instrument of mathematical precision. Our literature would be much the poorer if it were. This is where the draftsmen of Acts of Parliament have often been unfairly criticised. A judge, believing himself to be fettered by the supposed rule that he must look to the language and nothing else, laments that the draftsmen have not provided for this or that, or have been guilty of some or other ambiguity. " further, Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of State of Kerala Vs M. K. Krishnan Nair and Others (1978) 1 SCC 552 to contend that interpretation of a definition clause which opens with an expression unless the context otherwise requires should not be given literal meaning. Although the counsel for the petitioner has referred to several other judgments in the course of his arguments, as all of them pertain to interpretation of the statue keeping in mind the purpose and object of the legislation, in my view, it is unnecessary to deal with those judgments as there can be no dispute regarding the general propositions laid down.