UDAY KRISHNA NAIK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPOINTMENTS on compassionate grounds in the Civil Services of the State of Karnataka are governed by what are known as Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate grounds) Rules, 1996 framed under Section 8 of Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978. The rules permit such appointments in favour of the dependents of a deceased Government servant subject to the fulfillment of the conditions stipulated for the purpose. One of the conditions prescribed is that the family of the deceased Government servant is facing financial crisis or destitution. Rule 5 of the rules requires that every dependent of a deceased Government servant seeking appointment on compassionate grounds shall make an application to the Head of the department in which the deceased was serving within one year from the date of the death of the government servant in such form as may be notified. In the case of minor dependents, the proviso to the rule permits an application within one year after he/she attains majority. Rule 9 makes a transitional provision and inter alia provides that where an application could not for any reason be made between 20th of October, 1994 and the commencement of the rules by the dependent of a deceased Government servant, who died subsequent to October 1993 but before such commencement, such an application may be made within a period of one year from the date of the commencement of the rules, which shall be deemed to have been made within the period specified under Rule 5. What precisely is the nature of the requirement of these provisions is the only question that falls for consideration in this writ petition. Time now to state a few facts.

(2.) THE petitioner's father, late Sri Krishna Vittal Naik, was a Head Constable in the State Police department, who died in harness in March 1994. The petitioner is one of the seven children left behind by the deceased apart from his widow, all of whom were, according to the petitioner financially dependent upon the deceased. While the petitioner had not yet made an application for a compassionate appointment, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 20th of October, 1994 set aside the rules regulating such appointments. In an appeal against the said order before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal's view was upheld resulting in the framing of the rules that now hold the field. During the interregnum, the Government appear to have issued a circular in November 1996 forbidding consideration of applications for employment on compassionate grounds until the new rules were introduced. Even after the new rules had come into force, the petitioner's application was filed only on 30th of May, 1998, which was summarily rejected by the 3rd respondent by an endorsement dated 19th of June, 1998 on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period prescribed. Aggrieved, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the said order and prayed for a mandamus for consideration of his request.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that Rules 5 and 9 of the rules aforementioned insofar as the same prescribe a time-limit for making an application were only directory in nature and that an application filed belatedly could not be rejected only because the same was delayed. The object underlying the rules and the absence of any provision stipulating the consequences of a delayed filing were, according to the Counsel for the petitioner, sufficient for this Court to declare the rules to be directory. Reliance in support was placed on the decision of the Supreme court in Smt. Sushma Gosain and Others v Union of India and Others and the decision of a single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Santosh Kumar v Haryana State electricity Board and Another.