MUBEEN SHARIEFF Vs. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 919 of 2011 by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

(2.) The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus to the respondent to consider his application for appointment on compassionate grounds and issue appointment order in accordance with Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, (for short the Rules). The petitioner claims that he is son of one late Abdul Sattar Shariff, who was working as Head Coolie with the respondent - Bangalore Development Authority. It is stated that the father of the petitioner Abdul Sattar Shariff died while in service on 19.01.1998 living behind his wife and four children. The petitioner claims that he is the eldest son. The mother of the petitioner made an application on 09.02.1998 requesting to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. Petitioner was asked to submit proper application, which he submitted on 12.10.1999. It is stated that the respondent by letter 16.01.2003 asked the petitioner to produce certain documents, which the petitioner produced before the respondent - authority. The petitioner was called for Computer Training Programme which he attended. He states that even after several reminders the respondents have failed to pass any order. It is stated that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of the family and has to take care of the family members. He states that the respondent has been making appointment on compassionate grounds disregarding the seniority and submits that many persons have been appointed on compassionate grounds. As the respondents failed to issue any order, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. The respondent filed its statement of objections contending that the father of the petitioner was working as a Head Coolie in work charged establishment against a supernumerary post and not against any permanent post. It is stated that there is no provision for appointment on compassionate grounds against supernumerary post. The learned Single Judge considering the rival contentions dismissed the writ petition holding in sum and substance that the petitioner and his family were able to sustain for about 19 years and as such there is no justification to issue any mandamus for consideration of the claim of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is in appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent - authority. Perused the appeal papers.