K M PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07. 08. 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 41795/2004 dismissing the writ petition. The appellant filed the Writ Petition challenging the endorsement dated 14. 07. 2004 Annexure-C issued by the Chief executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Raichur rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

(2.) THE father of the appellant late M. Shankarappa was working as Secretary in the Gram Panchayat at Gabbur Village in Devdurga taluk of Raichur District. He died on 07. 01. 2001 while in service leaving behind his wife, a Son (the writ petitioner/appellant herein)and two daughters. The mother of the appellant made an application vide Annexure-B on 08. 06. 2001 addressed to the Zilla Panchayat, raichur requesting to appoint her son on compassionate grounds after he attained majority. She had stated in the said application that as she was not keeping good health she was not in a position to take up the job and her daughters' marriage was to be celebrated in the near future hence her two daughters Manjula and Mamatha were also not in a position to accept any job. At the time of death of his father, writ petitioner was a minor. His date of birth is 02. 04. 1986. He attained majority on 02. 04. 2004. After attaining majority, on 06. 04. 2004 the writ petitioner made an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The application filed came to be rejected by the endorsement impugned in the writ petition stating that as per Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds)Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules') as amended in 2000 the petitioner was not entitled for appointment. Aggrieved by the said endorsement the petitioner filed the Writ Petition out of which the present writ appeal arises.

(3.) THE Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that in the wake of the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules, the application filed by the writ petitioner beyond the period prescribed cannot be considered. It is further held that the mother of the writ petitioner and her daughters could have sought for appointment on compassionate grounds if the family was in penury and instead of seeking appointment for them a request was made to reserve the right in favour of the son who was to attain majority nearly after four years from the date of the death of the father, disclosed that it was not a case where the family was in a state of penury.