- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1603 WP No. 5860 of 2024 C/W WP No. 23180 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.5860 OF 2024 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.23180 OF 2023 (S-RES) IN WP No. 5860/2024 BETWEEN: SRI. SHANTHAMALLESHA J., S/O LATE SRI. K. JAYASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O. QUARTER NO.1, 6TH BLOCK, SREE MALAI MAHADESHWARA KSHETRA, ANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVANNA K.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENDOWMENT AND MUZARAI, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, MAHADESHWARA / MINTO BHAVANA, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1603 WP No. 5860 of 2024 C/W WP No. 23180 of 2023 ALUR VENKATA RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHAMARAJANAGAR, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE MALAI MAHADESHWARA SWAMY KSHETRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SREE MALAI MAHADESHWARA KSHETRA, ANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313 5. THE SECRETARY, O/O SREE MALAI MAHADESHWARA SWAMY KSHETRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SREE MALAI MAHADESHWARA KSHETRA, ANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SHUBANKAR C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R4 IS SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 19/05/2023 AS PER ANNEXURE T ISSUED BY R5 IN NO. SREE.MA.MA.KSHE.HA.PRA/7PR/19/21-22 AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1603 WP No. 5860 of 2024 C/W WP No. 23180 of 2023 IN WP NO. 23180/2023 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. KARTHIK PRASAD S., S/O LATE SHIVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT NUMBER 220, THAMBADIGERE ROAD, MEDICAL STORE, KOLLEGALA TALUK, MAHADESHWARA VILLAGE, MAHADESHWARA HILLS, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 490. 2. SHRI. NAGABHUSHANA SWAMY P., S/O LATE M. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT 2ND BPS, RAMPURA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK, MAHADESHWARA HILLS, MALE MAHADESHWARA, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 490. 3. SMT. NETHRAVATHI W/O LATE MAHADEVU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 4, BPS, BEHIND KALYANA MANTAPA, RAMPURA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK, MADESHWARA HILLS, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 490. 4. SHRI. P. RUDRESH S/O LATE PRABHUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT THAMBADIGERE STREET, RAMPURA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1603 WP No. 5860 of 2024 C/W WP No. 23180 of 2023 MAHADESHWARA HILLS, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 490. 5. SHRI. NANJUNDASWAMY S/O LATE NAGANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT 4TH BPS 9, BEHIND KALYANA MANTAPA, RAMPURA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK, MAHADESHWAR HILLS, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 490. 6. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE V. MADESHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 47, APS ROAD, MAHADESHWARA HILLS, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 490. 7. SHRI. M. HARISH KUMAR S/O LATE D MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT THANDIGERE STREET, MAHADESHWARA HILLS, MALE MAHADESHWARA, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 490. 8. SHRI. P. RAGHU S/O LATE PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAHADESHWARA HILLS, MALE MAHADESHWARA, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 490. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1603 WP No. 5860 of 2024 C/W WP No. 23180 of 2023 9. SHRI. KUMARA S/O LATE SMT. HOMBALAMMA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT VEERABHADRASHETTY, SALOORU MATA BHEEDI, MAHADESHWARA HILLS, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 490. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHESHADRI N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SAGAR V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MUZARAI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF MUZARAI, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, OPP. TO MINTO HOSPITAL, MAHADEVESHWARA COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560 004. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SHRI. MALE MAHADESHWARA TEMPLE, MALE MAHADESHWARA HILLS, KOLLEGAL TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST-571 490. 4. THE SECRETARY, SRI. MALE MAHADESHWARA SWAMY TEMPEL, SRI. MALE MAHADESHWARA SWAMY KSHETRA ABHIVRUDDI PRADHIKARA, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1603 WP No. 5860 of 2024 C/W WP No. 23180 of 2023 MALE MAHADESHWARA HILLS, KOLLEGAL TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 490. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; R3 IS SERVED; SRI. SHUBHANKAR C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRAKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO. SRI.MA.MA.KSHE.A.PRA/7 PR/28/2009-10 DATED 14/06/2023 PASSED BY THE R4 WHICH ARE ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE T TO T8 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1603 WP No. 5860 of 2024 C/W WP No. 23180 of 2023 ORAL ORDER In the above two writ petitions, the petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the impugned Endorsements, under which their request for compassionment appointment is rejected. 2. Since common issue is involved in both the writ petitions, both petitions are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common order. 3. Petitioners claim that they are the legal heirs of the deceased, who were working in 4th and 5th respondents-Temple Authority and while they were in service, they died. On the death of their father/mother, the petitioners submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionment ground. The request of the petitioners is rejected by different Endorsements dated 19.05.2023 and 14.06.2023 respectively. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Temple Authorities under Annexure-W annexed to W.P.No.5860/2024 proceedings dated 26.03.2015 passed resolution to provide employment to one of the members of the deceased-servant of the Temple. But the said resolution is not - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1603 WP No. 5860 of 2024 C/W WP No. 23180 of 2023 given effect to. Further, it is submitted that due to the death of bread earner, the petitioners are put into financial difficulty and as such they would be entitled for appointment on compassionment ground. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that there is no provision in the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short '1997 Act') as well as under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 (for short '2002 Rules') for appointment on compassionate grounds. Further, learned AGA places reliance on the decision of the Division Bench in W.A.No.100427/2022 dated 31.01.2024, wherein it is held that as there is no provision in the 1997 Act or 2002 Rules, the petitioners cannot seek compassionment appointment as a matter of right. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners are sons/daughters of deceased servants of respondent Nos.4 and 5-Temple. Admittedly, the Temples are governed by 1997 Act and 2002 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1603 WP No. 5860 of 2024 C/W WP No. 23180 of 2023 Rules. In the said 1997 Act and 2002 Rules, there is no provision for appointment on compassionate grounds. 7. Taking note of the provision of the 1997 Act as well as 2002 Rules, Division Bench in W.A.No.100427/2022 has held that the compassionment appointment could not be claimed as matter of right and it could be claimed in accordance with Rules prevailing in respect of compassionment appointment. Hence, the petitioners would not be entitled for compassionment appointment. The relevant finding at Paragraph No.9 of the said decision reads as follows: "9. The answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following reasons: (a) There is no dispute that the father of the petitioner viz., Parmesh, Son of Irappa Bilagi, was working in respondent No.3-Temple as Hundi Guard. He died while in service on 03.01.2018. The petitioner, the son of the deceased Parmesh, submitted an application on 27.01.2018 requesting for compassionate appointment. Under the endorsements dated 26.02.2018 and 15.02.2020, respondent No.2- Commissioner rejected petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment. (b) Admittedly, the temple and temple employees are governed by the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1603 WP No. 5860 of 2024 C/W WP No. 23180 of 2023 and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, (for short, ‘the 1997 Act’) and also the 2002 Rules. Rule 12 of the 2002 Rules provides for procedure of appointment of temple servants and Archakas. A reading of the said Rule would make it abundantly clear that only by following the procedure prescribed under the Rules, the authorities could appoint temple servants or Archakas in the notified temples. There is no provision other than Rule 12 of the 2002 Rules for appointment of Temple servants and Archakas. (c) Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and the authorities cannot offer compassionate appointment as a matter of course. Compassionate appointment can be made only in accordance with the prevailing rules/scheme governing compassionate appointment. When there is no Scheme or Rule providing compassionate appointment, no compassionate appointment could be made. In the instant case, neither the 1997 Act nor the 2002 Rules provides for compassionate appointment in case of death of a temple servant or archakas. It is true that compassionate appointment is provided to overcome the financial crisis on the death of bread winner i.e., an employee, but such compassionate appointment, to overcome the financial distress, could be made only in accordance with the existing Rules or Scheme. In the absence of any Rule or Scheme providing for compassionate appointment, the learned Single Judge could not have directed consideration of the petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:1603 WP No. 5860 of 2024 C/W WP No. 23180 of 2023 grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to point out under which Rule, the petitioner would get a right to seek compassionate appointment. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors.2, was considering a case of compassionate appointment in the Railways and, at paragraph 20, it is specifically observed that compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of Rules or Regulations issued by the Government or by a Public Authority. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the bread winner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:1603 WP No. 5860 of 2024 C/W WP No. 23180 of 2023 deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee, viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.” (d) Learned Counsel, Sri. Jagadish Patil contends that respondent No.2 has provided compassionate appointment to temple servants in various temples in the State of Karnataka and in that regard, he brings to the notice of this Court Annexure-S dated 02.06.2020 which provided compassionate appointment in the very same respondent No.3- temple. When we have come to the conclusion that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it could be claimed only in accordance with Rules prevailing in respect of compassionate of appointment, the petitioner cannot claim parity. If such appointment is de hors the Rules or Scheme or such appointments are illegal or irregularly made, the same benefit cannot be extended to the petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kartick Chandra Mondal (supra), at paragraph 25 of the judgment has held as follows: “25. Even assuming that the similarly placed persons were ordered to be absorbed, the same if done erroneously cannot become the foundation for perpetuating further illegality. If an appointment is - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:1603 WP No. 5860 of 2024 C/W WP No. 23180 of 2023 made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be the basis of further appointment. An erroneous decision cannot be permitted to perpetuate further error to the detriment of the general welfare of the public or a considerable section. This has been the consistent approach of this Court. However, we intend to refer to a latest decision of this Court on this point in State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh6, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereinbelow: (SCC p. 102, para 67) "67. By now it is settled that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order….” Appointment on equality under Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be claimed on the basis of an appointment made illegally or irregularly. Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners." - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:1603 WP No. 5860 of 2024 C/W WP No. 23180 of 2023 8. In terms of the above judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the present writ petitions are also rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24