- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32825-DB WP No. 12687 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 12687 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. HARISH KUMAR M., S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY K. M., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PRINTING STATIONARY AND PUBLICATIONS, R. V. COLLEGE POST, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 059, RESIDING AT No.3, GROUND FLOOR, IIIRD CROSS, LAKKASANDRA, AUDUGODI POST, BENGALURU - 560 030. EMAIL: HARIANU1988@GMAIL.COM PH: 9980454589. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. APOORVA BASAVARADDER, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32825-DB WP No. 12687 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , 6TH FLOOR, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PRINTING, STATIONARY AND PUBLICATIONS REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR R. V. COLLEGE POST, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 059. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.12.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH IN APPLICATION No. 6319 AND 7290/2019 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION No.6319 AND 7290/2019 AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B). THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32825-DB WP No. 12687 of 2025 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) The petitioner, aggrieved by order dated 12.12.2019 in Application Nos.6319 & 7290/2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal'), rejecting the petitioner's prayer to quash Endorsement dated 25/29.04.2019 (Annexure-A7) and for issuance of consequential direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's appointment and posting as First Division Assistant from the date of his appointment as Second Division Assistant and to direct the respondents to grant all consequential service benefits. 2. Heard Smt. Apoorva Basavaradder, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.B.Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the entire writ petition papers. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32825-DB WP No. 12687 of 2025 3. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as Second Division Assistant under order dated 11/13.08.2010 (Annexure-A3) in the Department of Directorate of Printing, Stationary and Publications. On accepting the said order of compassionate appointment, subsequently the petitioner submitted representation on 19.03.2019 requesting to appoint him as First Division Assistant stating that he had the qualification of Bachelor's degree as on the date of appointment on compassionate ground. The said request was rejected under endorsement dated 25/29.04.2019 (Annexure-A7) stating that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right in terms of Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the 1996 Rules'). The Rule states that the appointment once made would be final and no fresh appointment to a different post or higher post under the Rules shall be permissible. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32825-DB WP No. 12687 of 2025 4. Questioning the said endorsement, the petitioner was before the Tribunal and the Tribunal under impugned order, dismissed the application. Questioning the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Authorities committed a grave error in not providing the petitioner with higher post as the petitioner possesses the qualification of Bachelor's degree. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is entitled for appointment as First Division Assistant whereas, the authorities have provided appointment as Second Division Assistant. Learned counsel referring to Rule 4(4) of the 1996 Rules would submit that, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for appointment as First Division Assistant, by taking note of the qualification of the petitioner. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal failed to take note of Rule 4(4) of the 1996 Rules and proceeded to dismiss the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32825-DB WP No. 12687 of 2025 application. Thus, learned counsel prays for allowing the writ petition. 6. Sri.B.Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents would submit that the petitioner cannot claim appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right and he would submit that having accepted the appointment on compassionate grounds as Second Division Assistant, the petitioner cannot seek for higher post which is also impermissible under Rule 6(4) of the 1996 Rules, thus prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out any ground for interference with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground as Second Division Assistant by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32825-DB WP No. 12687 of 2025 order dated 11/13.08.2010, and since then, the petitioner is working as such. On 19.03.2019, the petitioner submitted representation seeking higher appointment as First Division Assistant on compassionate ground. The authorities rightly under endorsement dated 25/29.04.2019 rejected the petitioner's request for consideration of his case for appointment on higher post i.e., First Division Assistant stating that the petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right and that Rule 6(4) of the 1996 Rules would not permit such change of appointment. The Tribunal also rightly placing reliance on Rule 6(4) of the 1996 Rules, dismissed the application. 9. We do not find any irregularity or error in the order passed by the Tribunal. 10. Rule 3(1) of the 1996 Rules makes it clear that, a dependent of the deceased Government servant cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground as a matter - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32825-DB WP No. 12687 of 2025 of right. Rule 6(4) of the 1996 Rules also makes it abundantly clear that once appointed to a post on compassionate ground is final and no fresh appointment to a different post or to a higher post shall be permissible. In the instant case, the petitioner accepted appointment on compassionate ground as Second Division Assistant and after more than six years of such appointment, the petitioner made representation seeking appointment to a higher post. The said request was rightly rejected by the authorities. 11. The decision, which the petitioner's counsel places reliance in Writ Petition No.34332/2016 dated 26.02.2021 was circumstantially different and same would have no application to the facts of the present case. 12. Moreover, there is an inordinate delay of more than five years in filing the present writ petition. The order of Tribunal under challenge is dated 12.12.2019, whereas, the present writ petition is filed on 22.04.2025. No - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32825-DB WP No. 12687 of 2025 averment with regard to delay whatsoever, is forthcoming from the writ petition averments. The purpose of providing compassionate appointment to dependents of the deceased Government servant is to tide over the immediate financial difficulty. In the present case, the respondent-authority has provided with employment immediately. There is delay of six years in making the representation seeking higher post and thereafter, there is delay of more than five years in approaching this Court. 13. The writ petition is also liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and it stands rejected on merits as well as on delay and latches. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53