ISMAIL P JALAGERI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER had filed Application No.404 of 2004 in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore to direct the respondent to consider his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. PETITIONERs father late Patesab R. Jalageri, while working as a peon in the office of the Agriculture Officer, Mudhol, has died on 15-1-1989. PETITIONERs date of brith is 1-6-1983 and he was 6 years of age on the date of the death of his father. His mother had submitted a representation dated 5-6-1998 to the respondents appraising the death of her husband, by leaving of the family in indigent circumstances and requesting to keep the petitioners claim for appointment on compassionate grounds pending, till the petitioner attains the age of majority. PETITIONER has passed S.S.L.C. examination during March 2001. On 10-5-2002 he made as application to the 4th respondent to consider his name for appointment on compassionate grounds. The 4th respondent has forwarded the application of the petitioner together with enclosures to the 3rd respondent for necessary action. Thereafter the 4th respondent has sent a communication dated 21-7-2003 informing the petitioner that as per the existing rules, his case for appointment on compassionate grounds is not permissible. Questioning the said communication and for issue of the aforesaid direction, an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was filed. The Tribunal having found that a minor dependent of a deceased Government servant will not be eligible to claim appointment on compassionate grounds under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 if he does not attain majority within a year from the date of death of the Government servant and that the fact that a request had been made by the guardian will not help him and that the applicant attained majority only after 111/2 years from the dated of death of his father and the matter is squarely covered by the Division Bench decisions rendered in a similar matters, has dismissed the application. Questioning the order passed by the Tribunal and to grant the relief prayed for in the aforesaid application, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of writ petition.

(3.) THE third contention of the learned Counsel is that, non-compliance of the provisions of law, the consequences of which has not been prescribed, has to be construed as directory. THE contention is devoid of merit. In the case of Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others v K.R.Vishwanath (2005(5) Kar. LJ. 467 (SC) : AIR 2005 SC 3275 : (2005)7 SCC 206 : 2005 AIR SCW 4102), a similar contention advanced that, the rules are merely directory and no technical view should be taken, as the object is to provide sustenance to large number of members of the deceased Government servant, was not accepted by the Honorable Supreme Court.