- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29053-DB WP No. 10635 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 10635 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SHAMANTH G BHARADWAJ S/O LATE GOVINDA K R, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/A NO.101, ARVINDAKABINEYA APT, BENDRE NAGARA, BSK 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RANGANATHA S JOIS, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE -560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION IN KARNATAKA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE -560001. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, RAMANAGAR, DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-563159. 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA -562159. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29053-DB WP No. 10635 of 2024 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, RAMANAGAR ZILLA PANCHAYAT, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, ZILLA PANCHAYAT BHAVAN RAMANAGARA -562159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1, R2, R4, R5) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.02.2024 MADE IN A.NO-1560/2023 PASSED BY THE KSAT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAID ORDER AS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL, AND ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 14, 16(1) AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Petitioner, claiming to be son of one late Govinda.K.R., who is a dismissed Superintendent in the Education Department is before this Court questioning the order dated 01.02.2024 in Application No.1560/2023 whereunder the petitioner’s challenge to rejection of his request for compassionate appoint is dismissed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29053-DB WP No. 10635 of 2024 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Ranganath S. Jois for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s father was working as Superintendent in the Education Department and he died on 23.10.2020. Immediately thereafter within one year, son of the deceased made an application requesting appointment on compassionate ground. The said request of the petitioner was rejected, against which the petitioner is said to have filed appeal and the said appeal was rejected under endorsement dated 02.11.2022 (Annexure-A6). 4. Learned counsel Sri.Ranganath S. Jois would submit that for the first time, under endorsement dated 02.11.2022, the respondents disclosed that the father of the petitioner was imposed with punishment of dismissal under order dated 29.08.2016 and as such the petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29053-DB WP No. 10635 of 2024 would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel would vehemently submit that the said order of dismissal was not communicated to the father of the petitioner and learned counsel referring to Rule 12-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’) would submit that the communication of order would be a mandatory requirement. As the order of penalty of dismissal was not served on the father of the petitioner, penalty order of dismissal cannot be given effect to. Therefore, it is submitted that the father of the petitioner is deemed to have been continued in service and as such the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under the Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘1996 Rules). Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath would submit that on the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29053-DB WP No. 10635 of 2024 date of death of the petitioner’s father, he was not a Government servant, since he was dismissed by an order dated 29.08.2016. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner cannot seek compassionate appointment under 1996 Rules. Further, the learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the father of the petitioner was aware of the order of dismissal and in a mail addressed to the Department dated 03.11.2016, he had sought for keeping the order of dismissal in abeyance. Therefore, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that order of dismissal was not communicated has no basis. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29053-DB WP No. 10635 of 2024 Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal requires interference? 7. Answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons: The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be sought as a matter of right. The 1996 Rule lays down the eligibility and other conditions for compassionate appointment. Only the Government servants who are in service would be entitled for the benefit of 1996 Rules. In the instant case, the father of the petitioner was dismissed form service by order dated 29.08.2016, which is placed on record as Annexure-R1. As on the date of death of the petitioner’s father on 23.10.2020, the father of the petitioner was not a Government servant. Moreover, the father of the petitioner has not challenged the order of dismissal during his lifetime. The father of the petitioner was alive from 2016 to 2020 and during that period, the father of the petitioner had never questioned the order of dismissal. Whether the order of dismissal was served on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29053-DB WP No. 10635 of 2024 the petitioner’s father or not is a question of fact and it is not open for the petitioner, son of the deceased Government servant to contend that copy of the order of penalty is not served on the petitioner’s father. The Tribunal taking note of the material on record has rightly rejected the petitioner’s application. 8. We do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29