- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8660 WP No. 28300 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 28300 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI KIRAN KUMAR H M S/O LATE MALLIKARJINAIAH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT–572135. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BABU RAO M., ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY) M S BUILDING BANGALORE – 560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY) PUBLIC INSTRUCTION NRUPATHUNGA ROAD K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE–01. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATIVE) PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, MADUGIRI TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 132. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.J. ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1-R4 R5- SERVED) Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8660 WP No. 28300 of 2023 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ORDER/ ENDORSEMENT QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07/11/2023 PASSED BY THE R2 IN NO.C8(8) SHA.SHI.AA(RI.PI.SUM- 22551/2021)/130/2021-22 AS PER ANNEXURE-S AND B) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 24/08/2020 AS PER ANNEXURE- N AND CONTINUE THE PETITIONER ON APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner, aggrieved by the endorsement bearing No.¹8(8)±Á:²:D[j.¦.¸ÀA.22551/2021]/130/2021-22 dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure-S) rejecting approval of appointment on compassionate ground contrary to order dated 08.08.2023 in W.P.No.22551/2021 (Annexure-R) is before this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Babu Rao for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.J.Eshwarappa for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the entire writ petition papers. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8660 WP No. 28300 of 2023 3. The brief facts of the case are: The petitioner is the son of one Mallikarjunaiah who was working as Group-D/Attender in the 5th respondent- Educational Institution. He died while in service on 18.10.2019. Subsequently, the petitioner, son of deceased Mallikarjunaiah filed application for compassionate appointment. The Management, under order of appointment dated 24.08.2020 (Annexure-N) appointed the petitioner as Group-D Employee in place of his father. The proposal for approval of his appointment was forwarded to the respondents. The second respondent rejected the proposal for approval of the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground under Annexure-Q dated 27.10.2020 on the ground that the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and terms and condictions of service of employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions (amendment) Rules, 2017 (for short “2017 Rules”) would not permit compassionate appointment, and since the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8660 WP No. 28300 of 2023 institutions are required to obtain auxiliary Non-teaching staff services on outsource basis. The said endorsement was the subject matter of W.P.No.22551/2021. This Court, by order dated 08.08.2023 set aside the said endorsement and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for approval of compassionate appointment, keeping in mind the observations made in the said order. But, respondent No.2 issued impugned endorsement at Annexure-S dated 07.11.2023 rejecting the proposal for approval of his appointment on compassionate ground on the same ground. Questioning the same, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel Sri.Baburao would submit that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court has categorically stated that the Note on which, request of the petitioner was rejected cannot in any way extinguish the existing approved Group-D post which is required to be filled up. In the light of the observations as stated in the above said - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8660 WP No. 28300 of 2023 order in writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 could not have rejected the proposal for approval of the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground. He submits that the second respondent has failed to consider the observations of this Court and proceeded to reject the request of the petitioner on the same ground on which, earlier endorsement was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that petitioner’s father was appointed under approved Group-D post for which, the petitioner would be entitled to, on compassionate appointment. Thus, he prays for reconsideration of his case for approval by quashing the impugned endorsement dated 07.11.2023. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.J.Eshwarappa is not in a position to make his submission as to why second respondent while issuing impugned endorsement has failed to take note of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8660 WP No. 28300 of 2023 observations of this Court in W.P.No.22551/2021 disposed of on 08.08.2023. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the impugned endorsement dated 07.11.2023 needs to be quashed, with a direction to the second respondent to reconsider the proposal of the petitioner for approval of his appointment on compassionate ground, in the light of the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.22551/2021 disposed of on 08.08.2023. 7. Petitioner’s father Sri.Mallikarjunaiah was working as Group-D/Attender in the 5th respondent-Educational Institution. He died while in service on 18.10.2019. The 5th respondent-Educational Institution, considering the application of the petitioner which was filed within time, appointed him on compassionate ground, by order of appointment dated 24.08.2020. Subsequently, respondent No.5-Institution forwarded the proposal for approval of petitioner’s appointment to the Deputy - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8660 WP No. 28300 of 2023 Director. The Deputy Director under Annexure-Q placing reliance on Note-2 of 2017 amended Rules, rejected the proposal of the petitioner which was challenged in the above stated writ petition. This Court, while allowing the said writ petition at paragraphs 8 and 9 has observed as follows: “8. As per Annexure-N, the Management has categorically stated that there was an existing Group-D post available as the result of retirement of another employee. This would, therefore, indicate that there is an existing approved Group-D post available to be filled up. If there is indeed an existing Group-D post available to be filled up, there can be no bar for considering the petitioner on compassionate basis since all that would be done is that the approved Group-D post would be filled up by appointing the kin of a deceased employee, instead of calling for fresh applications. 9. The reliance placed on Note No.2 to the Rules may not be relevant to the instant case since Note No.2 essentially is a part of the Recruitment Rules which states that in respect - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8660 WP No. 28300 of 2023 of outsource services, the institutions are required to obtain auxiliary Non-Teaching staff services by outsourcing the entire services. This Note cannot in any way extinguish the existing approved Group-D post which is required to be filled up.” 8. The second respondent-Director failed to take note of the above observation of this Court while issuing impugned endorsement dated 07.11.2023. Again the second respondent-Director placing reliance on Note No.2 of 2017 Rules, rejected the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. The impugned endorsement dated 08.08.2023 is totally opposed to the observations of this Court in the earlier writ petition. Hence, the following order: (i) The impugned endorsement bearing No.¹8(8)±Á:²:D[j.¦.¸ÀA.22551/2021]/130/2021-22 dated 08.08.2023 at Annexure-S is quashed. (ii) The second respondent is directed to reconsider the proposal for approval of the petitioner’s appointment - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8660 WP No. 28300 of 2023 on compassionate ground, in the light of the observations of this Court at paragraphs 8 and 9 of W.P.No.22551/2021 disposed of on 08.08.2023. (iii) Time for compliance: Three months from today. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53