- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47877-DB RP No. 134 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REVIEW PETITION NO.134 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NANDINI A T W/O HARISH, D/O MEENAKSHI K AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VEMANANAGARA, CHALLAKERE GATE, CHITRADURGA-577536. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT POLICE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47877-DB RP No. 134 of 2024 CHITRADURGA-577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS UNDER SECTION 114 OF R/W ORDER 47 CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.02.2024 IN WP NO. 21617/2022 (S- KSAT) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner is unsuccessful in calling in question the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") Order dated 14.09.2022 in Application No.193 of 2022. The petitioner has filed this application with the Tribunal being aggrieved by the Endorsement dated 14.09.2022 issued refusing compassionate appointment on the ground that her mother died in harness. This Court, in the Writ Petition in WP No.21617 of 2022, has refused to intervene on the consideration that compassionate - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47877-DB RP No. 134 of 2024 appointment is an exception to the Rule of equality in the matter of public employment and that such exception is made to enable a family to get over the financial crisis because of the death of the breadwinner, and on why the petitioner should fail, this Court has observed thus: "(c) Learned AGA appearing for the Respondents is more than justified in contending that with the asset and money holding of Petitioner's family as above, and attractive employment position of her husband, there is absolutely no room for the plea of distress of the family, on account of death of its breadwinner. After all, the compassionate appointment is an apology to the rule of equality, in the matter of public employment and still it is provided to tide over family's difficulty arising out of death of its breadwinner in harness. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MRS. MEGA J. v. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (LIC), 2023 NCKHC 35178, at para 5, has observed as under: "5. It hardly needs to be stated that the appointment on compassionate ground avails as an exception to the rule of equality enacted in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in Bank of Baroda Vs. Baljit Singh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 745 has reiterated concession and therefore, cannot be claimed as a matter of right; the job aspirants on this ground need to satisfy the criteria laid down in the extant rules/schemes. Added, the right to claim such appointment is conditioned by the fact that the family of the employee dying in harness is in financial - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47877-DB RP No. 134 of 2024 distress and therefore, needs to be tided over…" (d) There is force in the submission of the learned AGA that the law as obtaining on the date the application for compassionate appointment is considered should be kept in view. Admittedly, the death of employee in harness occurred on 3.5.2020, the subject Rules namely Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, came to be amended vide Notification dated 9.4.2021. They have enlarged the definition of family, is true. However, one of the conditions which is stipulated in this definition vide amended Rule 2(b)(ii) reads as under: "in case of the deceased female married Government Servant her son, daughter (unmarried/married/divorced/widowed) and widower who were dependent upon her and were living with her." This requirement is not complied with even in the least. The contention that the benefit of these Rules should be given to the petitioner cannot be accepted except by manhandling the same and that cannot be done by the Courts to suit the requirement of a particular individual, especially when the same partakes the character of a Policy matter." Sri Sharath S. Gowda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there must be a review of this Court's order dated 21.02.2024 because this Court has not considered the explanation appended to Rule 4(1) of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47877-DB RP No. 134 of 2024 Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules"), and Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that there is no ground for reviewing this Court's order dated 21.02.2024. This Court is not inclined to opine that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in this Court's order dated 21.02.2024 to intervene and review in the light of the facts that are considered by this Court in the extracted portion of the order. Hence, the petition stands rejected. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE LNN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1