- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3379-DB WA No. 1749 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1749 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRINIVASA VIDHYAVARDHAKA PROUDHA SHALE HUILLDORE VILLAGE BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY N GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANANDEESWARA D.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT NEW PUBLIC OFFICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD K R CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. JOINT DIRECTOR PUBLIC EDUCATION HIGHER Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3379-DB WA No. 1749 of 2024 EDUCATION, NEW PUBLIC OFFICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. KSHETRA SHIKSHANA ADHIKARI (BEO) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DIST - 572 137. 4. SRI. GOWTHAM H R S/O LATE L RANGANATHA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O HUILLDORE VILLAGE BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S.HARISH, GA FOR R1 to R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.24251/2023 (S-RES) THEREBY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3379-DB WA No. 1749 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) Aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.No.24251 of 2023, respondent No.4 therein has preferred this Writ Appeal. 2. The appellant is a school which is aided by the Government. The father of respondent No.4 was employed with the appellant’s school and he died in harness. Respondent No.4 requested the appellant for being appointed with the appellant’s school on compassionate grounds in accordance with proviso to Rule 3(1)(a) of the Karnataka Educational Institution (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999. The appellant has not considered the request of respondent No.4 on the ground that the father of respondent No.4 had agreed to gift a property in favour of the appellant and after his demise, to complete the valid conveyance, respondent No.4 is required to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3379-DB WA No. 1749 of 2024 execute the necessary deed along with his family members. Aggrieved by the stand of the appellant, respondent No.4 preferred Writ Petition No.24251 of 2023. 3. Learned Single Judge on the ground that non- execution of the documents conveying the property in favour of the appellant by respondent No.4 cannot be a ground to reject the request of respondent No.4 herein, has allowed the writ petition and passed the following order, " i) W.P is allowed; ii) The respondent No.4 is directed to forward the request of the petitioner to respondent Nos.1 to 3 within one month from today; iii) The respondents Nos.2 and 3 shall consider the proposal forwarded by respondent No.4 within a period of two months thereafter. iv) It is also made clear that the respondent No.4, if does not send the proposal within one month from today, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to forthwith stop all financial aid to the respondent No.4." Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed. 4. In the course of arguments, the appellant contends that if respondent No.4 and his family members were to execute the necessary documents conveying the property claimed by the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3379-DB WA No. 1749 of 2024 appellant, in favour of the appellant’s school, the request of the petitioner would be considered. It is submitted that learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating the fact that the father of respondent No.4 had agreed to convey the property in question and that respondent No.4 is not co-operating with the appellant institution. 5. Admittedly, father of respondent No.4 was an employee of the appellant’s school. He died in harness. As per the proviso of the Rule 3(1)(a), it provides for employment of a family member of the deceased employee on compassionate ground subject to certain restrictions. Consequently, claim of the appellant is required to be considered by all the authorities concerned including the appellant. Non-conveyance of a property in favour of the appellant by respondent No.4 cannot be a ground to deny the said benefit to respondent No.4 as per the Rules mentioned above. If the appellant has any right over the property in question, it is always open for it to seek appropriate remedy in the manner known to law. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3379-DB WA No. 1749 of 2024 Under the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere in the well-reasoned order of the learned Single Judge and for that reason, the writ appeal is hereby dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, any interlocutory application that may be pending, would not survive and stands accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14