- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1226 WP No. 101875 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 101875 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. MAHANTESH S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA KARIDINNAVAR, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. NUCHHAMBLI BHAVI ONI, HOSAYALLAPUR, DHARWAD, PIN -580001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, AND SRI. D.V. PATTAR, ADVOCATES) AND: THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD, PIN- 580008. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION/ ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. KAVIVI/SIAASUVI/SHIKSHAKETARA/12/2022-2496, DATED 07.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO GIVE AN ORDER OF APPPINTMENT ON A MEDICAL COMPENSATE BASIS AS EARLIEST AS POSSIBLE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1226 WP No. 101875 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner is before this court seeking the following prayers: a. Issue a writ of nature of certiorari quashing the impugned communication/endorsement bearing no. kavivi/siaasuvi/shikshaketara/12/2022-2496, dated 07.02.2022 issued by the respondent authority marked as annexure-d. b. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority to give an order of apppintment on a medical compensate basis as earliest as possible in the interest of justice and equity. c. Such other writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fits on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner is the son of one Virupaxappa Karadinnavar who was an employee in the Karnataka University. The father of the petitioner voluntarily retired on medical ground on 31.12.1994. No claim for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds was made for close to 27 years. 3. The petitioner appears to have woken up now as he had crossed the age of consideration for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1226 WP No. 101875 of 2023 employment in any organization, and submits a representation seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The claim is rejected by the order dated 07.02.2022 and rightly so. The challenge is to the said endorsement. 4. As observed hereinabove, the retirement is in the year 1994. The petitioner keeps quiet for 27 years and then submits a representation for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. If close to 30 years the family could sustain without the income of the breadwinner of the family, there can be no question of a direction to be issued to consider the case of the petitioner and compassionate appointment at this stage. Any direction of that kind if issued it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of J & K and others vs. Sajad Ahmad Mir 1 wherein the Apex Court has held as under: “11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought 'compassion', the 1 (2006) 5 SCC 766 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1226 WP No. 101875 of 2023 Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 12. xxx 13.xxx 14. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors. [(1994) 4 SCC 138], it was ruled that public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and on merits. The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment. It is merely an exception to the requirement of law keeping in view the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. Such appointments on compassionate ground, therefore, have to be made in accordance with rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. This favorable treatment to the dependant of the deceased employee must have clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved thereby, i.e. relief against destitution. At the same time, however, it should not be forgotten that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions and millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectation, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment, which are suddenly upturned. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1226 WP No. 101875 of 2023 15. In Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1989) 4 SCC 468], it was observed that in claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should be no delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. 16. Recently, in Commissioner of Public Instructions & Ors. v. K.R. Vishwanath, [(2005) 7 SCC 206], one of us (Pasayat, J.) had an occasion to consider the above decisions and the principles laid down therein have been reiterated. 17. In the case on hand, the father of the applicant died in March, 1987. The application was made by the applicant after four and half years in September, 1991 which was rejected in March, 1996. The writ petition was filed in June, 1999 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge in July, 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the date of death of the father of the applicant. The said fact was indeed a relevant and material fact which went to show that the family survived in spite of death of the employee. Moreover, in our opinion, the learned single Judge was also right in holding that though the order was passed in 1996, it was not challenged by the applicant immediately. He took chance of challenging the order in 1999 when there was inter- departmental communication in 1999. The Division Bench, in our view, hence ought not to have allowed the appeal.” 5. In that light, the petition thus devoid of merits, stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NAA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75