- 1 - NC: 2025: KHC-D:2170-DB WP No. 102935 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 102935 OF 2023 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: GURUSIDAPPA S/O. MADIWALAPPA GODI, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. PRABHU NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DHARWAD-590001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, BELAGAVI-590001. Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025: KHC-D:2170-DB WP No. 102935 of 2023 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. 5. THE TAHASILDAR BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. K. HIREGOUDAR, PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.11159/2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B, ENDORSEMENT DATED 19/3/2020 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A4 AND ORDER/ENDORSEMENT DATED. 12/05/2020 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A5, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE ORDER THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025: KHC-D:2170-DB WP No. 102935 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner who is aged 20 years is unsuccessful in pursuing his application with the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal [for short “the Tribunal”] for directions to the authorities to appoint him on compassionate ground. The petitioner’s application with the Tribunal is in A.No.11159/2021. The petitioner has filed this application calling in question the Endorsements issued by the authorities rejecting his application for appointment because the family income is more than the prescribed limit. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner’s mother, Smt. Renuka, has died on 12.03.2019 while working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Model Higher Primary School No.1, Bailhongal. The petitioner’s father is a retired defense personnel, and he is drawing a pension. The petitioner’s family consists of his father and three sons, including himself. The petitioner’s elder brother is employed. The family income, including the brother’s income but excluding the pension drawn by the father, is more than the - 4 - NC: 2025: KHC-D:2170-DB WP No. 102935 of 2023 prescribed limit. The petitioner’s grievance is essentially found in the assertion that the Income Certificate given by the competent is considered though it includes the pension drawn by the father and the income of the elder brother who is married and staying separately. If Sri Vinay S. Koujalagi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, proposes to rely upon the assertion that the concerned could not have taken the income of the petitioner’s brother because he lives separately and that he was living with his mother as on the date of the demise. Sri G.K.Hiregoudar, the learned Principal Government Advocate, submits that the petitioner has not brought on record any circumstance to establish his case that his elder brother lives separately and that mere say in that regard would not suffice. Sri G.K.Hiregoudar also points out that in the case of a lady Government servant the Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 2021, a son will have preference over the widower only if widower makes a choice and in the - 5 - NC: 2025: KHC-D:2170-DB WP No. 102935 of 2023 present case, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner’s father has chosen the petitioner. These rival submissions are considered, and this Court must at the outset observe that the petitioner has not called in question the Income Certificate. In the absence of such challenge and the concerned examining whether the brother’s income should be excluded, this Court cannot intervene with the Tribunal’s decision. Further, this Court must observe that the appointments on compassionate grounds are made as an exception to the general rule of recruitment to help a family which has lost its bread earner to avoid penury and not in recognition of a right to employment notwithstanding all circumstances. In the peculiarities, this Court is of the view that the requisites are not established, and as such, the writ petition stands rejected. SD/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE VMB/CT-VG