STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K G SOWBHAGYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the respondents in the writ petition. The respondents herein are the writ petitioners. For convenience, the parties will be referred with reference to their rank in the writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 is the wife, petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the son and daughter respectively of one Somasundara, who, while working as a assistant Teacher in Government Higher Primary School, has died on 16. 12. 1988 leaving behind him, the petitioners. The 1st petitioner had submitted a representation dated 20. 12. 1990, to provide a job to her son, the 2nd petitioner, who was then aged about 6 years. Considering the said representation, a reply dated 19. 1. 1991 was issued to the effect that the information furnished in the application is incomplete, the date of birth of the son of the 1st petitioner being 19. 2. 1982, since he has not completed 18 years of age, to submit all records in triplicate later. The petitioners have submitted a representation dated 20. 3. 2000 seeking appointment to the 2nd petitioner on compassionate ground. The said representation was rejected on the ground that since the application was not made within one year from the date of death, the same cannot be entertained as per the government Notification dated 31. 3. 1999. Questioning the endorsement, writ petition was filed. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, holding that the respondents-Authorities are not justified in rejecting the representation, has allowed the writ petition in part, by quashing the impugned endorsement and has directed the 3rd respondent, to consider the representation submitted by the 2nd petitioner, seeking appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with the Rules and in the light of the observations. The order passed by the learned Single Judge has been questioned in this appeal.

(3.) SRI N. Dinesh Rao, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants, contended that, learned Single Judge is not justified in allowing the writ petition and issuing the direction. He contended that the death of employee having taken place on 16. 2. 1988 and nearly two decades having lapsed thereafter, there cannot be any claim for appointment on compassionate ground, much less, any consideration at this length of time. He cited the decision in the case of Sri km. Prakash Vs. The State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2007 Kar. 3108. He contended that, the law laid down by the Apex Court in catena of decisions has to be taken into consideration, which has not been done by the learned Single Judge and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.