THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs T RAVIKUMAR SON OF LATE ERANNA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14771-DB
WA No. 100679 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020215692025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
WRIT APPEAL NO.100679 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SACHIVALAYA-II,
M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU-580001,
REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
K.R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
GULBARGA DIVISION, GULBARGA-585101.
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI H
M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.11.04
11:22:17 +0530
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-583101.
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
SIRUGUPPA TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT-583101.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP)
AND:
T. RAVIKUMAR S/O. LATE ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
TH
R/A. 19 WARD, PLOT NO.12,
ROYAL COLONY, OPP. ROYAL HOUSE,
S.N. PET, BALLARI DISTRICT-583101.
…RESPONDENT
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14771-DB
WA No. 100679 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020215692025
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED.
13.09.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP NO.
104624/2023 (S-RES); AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )
1. The appellant/State calls in question an order of the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.104642 of 2023
disposed of on 13.09.2024, whereby the learned Single Judge
directs consideration of the case of the petitioner therein for
appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the extant
rules.
2. Heard Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court
Pleader for respondent No.1.
3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:
The father of the respondent is said to have joined as
Assistant Teacher in the Government Primary School,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14771-DB
WA No. 100679 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020215692025
Kenchanagudda village, Sirguppa taluk, Ballari district. He dies
in harness on 03.09.1999. The petitioner, who is son of the
deceased, at the time of the death of his father was a minor.
The mother submits an application seeking appointment on
compassionate grounds within 1 year of the date of death on
17.08.2000. The application submitted by the mother was
rejected on 22.11.2004. This was called in question before the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.7104
of 2005, which the Tribunal rejects the same which was called
in question before this Court in Writ Petition No. 104642/2023.
The matter was remitted back to the hands of the Authorities to
consider the application afresh. The application now comes to
be rejected on 01.09.2022, the rejection of which was called in
question before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single
Judge allows the petition, directs reconsideration of the case of
the respondent on compassionate grounds in the light of the
amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on
Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules’).
4. The State is before the Court on the score that the
writ petitioner did not submit any application. But it is the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14771-DB
WA No. 100679 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020215692025
mother who submitted the application on both the occasions,
but would admit the fact that both the applications were within
time in terms of the Rules or amendment to the Rules.
5. The learned HCGP would submit that there is no
warrant of consideration of the case of the respondent for
appointment on compassionate grounds after about 28 years of
death of the sole breadwinner of the family.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned HCGP and have perused the
record.
7. The afore-narrated dates link in the chain of events
are a matter of record. The father of the petitioner dies in
harness on 03.09.1999 after having served about 23 years in
the Government Primary School, as an Assistant Teacher. The
petitioner at that point in time was 17 years and could not have
filed an application for compassion appointment. The mother
files within 1 year of the date of death. But the petitioner had
not attained majority within 1 year in terms of the Rules
prevailing then i.e. Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14771-DB
WA No. 100679 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020215692025
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, which
reads as follows:
“ 5. Application for appointment:- a dependent of the
deceased Government servant seeking appointment
under the said rules was to make an application within
one years from the date of death of the Government
servant, and in a case of minor, the application has to be
made within one year after attaining the age of the
majority.”
8.
The Rules undergo an amendment. In terms of the
amendment, the petitioner becomes entitled for consideration
of the case for appointment on compassionate grounds. This
was denied and therefore the writ petitioner was before the
learned Single Judge. The Learned Single Judge by the
following order at paragraph 9 of its order has directed
consideration of the case of the writ petitioner in terms of the
amendment to the Rules:
“9. From above, it is seen that petitioner is
challenging endorsement issued by respondents no.1
and 2 as per Annexures-P and N respectively. Since
question of jurisdiction of this Court is urged, same
has to be considered upfront. In view of ratio laid
down by constitution of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
and others reported in AIR 1997 SC 1255 , an
applicant/petitioner would require to approach
Administrative Tribunals under Section 14 or 15
thereof in first instance, it is seen that in instant case,
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14771-DB
WA No. 100679 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020215692025
petitioner had approached Tribunal earlier and this
Court thereafter. This Court on elaborate
consideration had passed detailed order. In view of
manner of passing of impugned order/endorsement,
an extraction of findings in said writ petition requires.
“7. We have given our thoughtful
consideration to the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the materials on record carefully.
8. It is undisputed fact that the father of
the petitioner namely T. Eranna was working as
Assistant Teacher in Government Primary
School, who died during service on 03.09.1999.
It is also not in dispute that the mother of the
petitioner filed an application on behalf of the
petitioner on 17.08.2000 for compassionate
appointment within the time stipulated, when
the petitioner was minor. The said application
was not adjudicated and in the mean time, the
petitioner attained the age of majority on
17.07.2001 and the mother of the petitioner
was forced to file one more application on
26.07.2001 on behalf of the petitioner as per
Annexure-A2 for compassionate appointment.
Vide Annexure-A3, dated 05.04.2002, though a
reference was made for compassionate
appointment of the petitioner, not referred any
of the applications filed by the mother of the
petitioner, but referred only the application
dated 16.08.2001 communicated to the
Commissioner of Public Instruction, i.e., second
respondent for further action. As per Annexure-
A4, by the very same Deputy Director of Public
Instructions addressed to the Block Education
Officer on 17.05.2002 made a reference to the
letter of Commissioner of Public Instructions
dated 18.04.2002. It is also not in dispute that
as per Annexure-A5, dated 16.08.2003, the
Deputy Director of Public Instructions
recommending the appointment of the
petitioner on compassionate appointment in
view of the amended provisions of Rule 9 dated
th
28 May 2002. The said recommendation was
not adjudicated by the Commissioner of Public
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14771-DB
WA No. 100679 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020215692025
Instructions. Things stood thus, very
interestingly, the Deputy Director of Public
Instruction ignoring his own recommendation to
the Commissioner of Public Instructions issued
an endorsement that there is a delay in filing
application.
9. All these material facts are not in
dispute. The KAT while considering the
application recorded a finding that in the
present case, the impugned order passed by
the third respondent, according to the learned
Government Advocate, the first respondent
i.e., the State Government is the competent
authority to consider the application of the
petitioner. Such being the fact, the first
respondent has not taken any decision,
unfortunately, the KAT has rejected the
application holding that since the application
submitted by the mother of the petitioner,
serve no purpose and the applicant has not
filed any application for compassionate
appointment, the KAT ignored the entire
materials on record i.e., the applications filed
by the mother of the petitioner on 17.08.2000
when the petitioner was minor and on
17.07.2001, when the petitioner attained the
age of majority. Admittedly, as on the date of
amendment of Rule 9 which came into force on
th
28 May 2002, none of the applications were
decided. Unfortunately, the Additional Director
of Public Instructions by the impugned order
dated 12/22.11.2004 as per Annexure-A6
returned the application on the ground of delay,
which is impermissible in view of the provisions
of Rule 9 of the Amended Rule, which came
th
into force on 28 Many 2002, it reads as under:
“3. Amendment of rule 9:- in rule 9 of
the said rules, after sub-rule (2) the following
shall be inserted namely,
(3) All application form appointment on
compassionate grounds made between the
thirteenth day of September 1996 and the date
of commencement of the Karnataka Civil
Services (Appointment on Compassionate
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14771-DB
WA No. 100679 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020215692025
Grounds) (Third amendment) Rule, 2002 by
the dependents of the Government servants
who die don or after twentieth October 1989
(other than the application made by such
dependents after the first day of April 1999 and
till the date of such commencement in
contravention of the first provisio to Rule 5)
Which are.
(1) Rejected on the ground that they were
not made within the period specified in rule 5
or
5. ог
(ii) Pending on such date of commencement.
Shall be deemed to have been made within the
period specified under rule 5 and shall be
reconsidered or as the case may be considered
for appointment subject to other provisions of
these rules."
10. It is also relevant to state at this stage as per
Annexure-A6 relied upon by the Government issued by
the Additional Director of Public Instructions addressed
to the Block Education Officer and a copy was
communicated to the petitioner, i.e., the mother of the
petitioner rejecting the first application dated
16.08.2000 (17.08.2000) as there was no provision to
consider the application filed within time on
18.12.2004, that is on par with Annexure-A6 by the
same person. Therefore, it is clear that till 2004, the
application of the petitioner was not adjudicated. In
view of the amended provision, which clearly depicts
that all the applications for appointment on
compassionate grounds made between thirteenth day
of September 1996 and the date of commencement of
the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on
Compassionate Grounds) (Third amendment), Rule
th
2002 with effect from 28 May 2002 by the dependents
of the Government servants who died on or after
twentieth October 1989 other than the application
made by such dependents after the first day of April
1999 and till the date of such commencement in
contravention of the first proviso to Rule 5, which are
rejected on the ground that they were not made within
the period specified in Rule 5 of pending on such date
of commencement shall be deemed to have been made
within the period specified under Rule 5 and shall be
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14771-DB
WA No. 100679 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020215692025
reconsidered or as the case may be considered for
appointment subject to other provisions of these rules.
11. In view of the aforesaid amended provision
and non consideration of the application filed by the
mother of the petitioner filed on behalf of the petitioner
till 2004, the endorsement issued is contrary to the
amended provisions and law cannot be sustained.
12. Though a contention was raised by the learned
Government Advocate that the very Additional Director
of Public Instructions, reiterating the reasons assigned
in the impugned order has rejected the claim of the
petitioner dated 18.12.2004, the fact remains even
assuming the Additional Director of Public Instructions
passed one more order assigning the very same
reasons in the impugned order is not valid in view of
the amended provisions of Rule 9 of the Amended Rules
stated supra and there was no need to challenge the
said order. Admittedly the same has not been
considered by the KAT in the present impugned order
and the State Government has not filed any writ
petition for not considering the said contention.
Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Additional
Director of Public Instructions cannot be sustained. The
matter requires reconsideration by the competent
authority.
13. For the reasons stated above, the
point raised in the present writ petition is to be
held in the negative holding that the KAT is not
justified in rejecting the application and the
impugned order passed by the Additional
Director of Public Instructions as per Annexure-
A6, dated 12/22.11.2004 cannot be sustained.
14. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order passed by the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal,
Bengaluru in Application No.7014/2005 is
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14771-DB
WA No. 100679 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020215692025
hereby set aside.
iii. The impugned order passed by the
Additional Director of Public Instructions as
per Annexure-A6 12/22.11.2004 is hereby
quashed.
iv. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to
consider the applications of the petitioner's
mother filed on behalf of the petitioner
on 17.08.200 and 26.07.2001 taking into
consideration the amended Rule 9 of the
Amended Rule, which came into force on
25th May 2002 and pass appropriate
speaking orders strictly in accordance with
law.”
This is what is called in question by the State.
14. On a perusal and the reason so rendered by the
learned Single Judge, we do not find any error to interfere and
set aside the order so passed.
15. In the light of the order being only to reconsider the
case of the petitioner by taking note of Amendment to Rule 5
which was by way of a Notification dated 09.04.2021, the time
limit so fixed for consideration by 3 months shall stand
extended by us, for another 3 months from today.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:14771-DB
WA No. 100679 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020215692025
16. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal lacking
merit stands rejected. As a consequence, I.A.1/2025, 2/2025
and 3/2025 do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
kmv
CT:VH