- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 102213 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. SUBRAMANYA S/O. MANJUNATH HEGDE, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. HANAJIBAIL, AT. POST KONDLI, TALUK: SIDDAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581355. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAGAR R. HEGDE AND SRI. S.R. HEGDE, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, TO THE SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, RODDA ROAD, DHARWAD-580008. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OFFICE, SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581401. 4. THE EDUCATION OFFICER, TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581355. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A. A WRIT OF CERTIORARI MAY PLEASE BE ISSUED QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025 BEARING IT’S NO.C3/CA/AANE/DWIDASA/S.M.H./47/2022-23 DATED 08/04/2024 REJECTING THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-K TO THE WRIT PETITION. B. A WRIT OF MANDAMUS MAY KINDLY BE ISSUED DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-E DATED 12/01/2022 AND ANNEXURE-F DATED 06/06/2022 AND TO PASS A SUITABLE ORDERS REGARDING EMPLOYMENT OF THE PETITIONERS ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) The present petition is filed seeking to quash the rejection of the application for appointment on compassionate ground. It is the case of petitioner that his mother Smt.Yashoda Krishna Hegde while working as Teacher in primary school unfortunately died in harness on 07.02.2020. The father of petitioner predeceased his mother. These facts are not in dispute. 2. Petitioner filed an application seeking employment on compassionate ground to the respondent No.4 contending that he would attain the age of majority on 05.08.2021 and as such, he sought for employment after - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025 attaining the age of majority. Respondent No.4, returned the representation of the petitioner with an endorsement stating that since the petitioner had not attained the age of majority within one year from the date of death of his mother, hence, he was not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. 3. Thereafter, petitioner made another representation seeking appointment on the basis of compassionate grounds on 12.01.2022 vide Annexure-E. The said representation though forwarded along with documents, it was again returned with an endorsement by respondent No.3 stating that since the petitioner had not attained the age of majority within one year from the date of death of his mother, he is not entitled. 4. It is the case of petitioner that he has completed his SSLC and PUC and also completed the Basic Computer Training and since he was not granted appointment on compassionate grounds. He filed Writ Petition - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025 No.105890/2023. The said petition of the petitioner came to be allowed with a direction to respondents to consider the application of the petitioner in the light of the order made therein and the Rule 6(7) of the amendment Rules. Pursuant to this order, the respondent authorities rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner’s case would not come under provision of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Ground) Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules’) i.e., Annexure-K and hence, the petitioner is before this Court questioning the same. 5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for petitioner that when the petitioner’s case was rejected by the respondent, he had preferred a writ petition as stated supra, which came to be allowed and a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner as per the amended Rules, which was inserted in 31.05.2021 Amendment, more specifically Sub-rule (7) of Rule 6 of the Rules. Therefore, he contends - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025 that the application made by the petitioner, the respondent ought to have considered as per the amended Rules rather than reverting to the earlier Rules of 1996 and as per the amended Rules, petitioner fairly fulfills the requirement and he deserves to be appointed on compassionate grounds. This aspect was considered by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in writ petition stated supra, but the authorities have given very same remark and rejected the case of the petitioner on the previous Rules of 1996. 6. Learned AGA representing the respondent/State contends that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner would have to approach the KAT for adjudicating his claim and grievance as the mother of the petitioner was a State Government employee. Therefore, he contends that this petition would not be maintainable and the matter be relegated to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for consideration in accordance with law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondents. 8. The facts of the case are not disputed by the learned AGA representing the State including the death of mother and father of the petitioner, who predeceased the mother and the application that was made prior and the later application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds after the petitioner had attained the age of majority. In the earlier round of litigation before this Court, there was no objection raised with regard to the maintainability of the petition or to relegate to the alternative efficacious remedy. No doubt, it is true that the petitioner’s mother was a State Government employee and the petitioner would squarely come within the submission made by the learned AGA that he would have to approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 for his redressal of the grievance. But what has to be considered in the present peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is that, petitioner was minor as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025 on date of death of the Government employee and he made an application during his minority which was not considered. Subsequently, he made another application after attaining the age of majority. The peculiar fact of this case is the mother of the petitioner, who was a Government employee died in harness and the father of petitioner had predeceased the mother of petitioner. Therefore, petitioner being an orphan and having no avocation and support both financially and emotionally, made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The authorities considering all these aspects ought to have taken note of and considered the case of the petitioner not only on the Rules and Regulations existing and amended Rules, but also on the ground of sympathetic reasons. The same having not been done despite the earlier order passed in the writ petition. This Court is empowered to take up the matter despite their being an alternate efficacious remedy, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025 the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA with regard to the alternative remedy is negatived for the present case. Under the circumstances, since the learned AGA has not disputed all other facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to pass the following : ORDER (i) Petition is allowed. (ii) The endorsement issued by respondent No.2 rejecting of the representation of the petitioner dated 08.04.2024 is hereby quashed. (iii) The writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds as per Rule 6(7) which is inserted by virtue of amendment of 2021 to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8937 WP No. 102213 of 2025 (iv) Respondent No.2 shall pass suitable orders by following the order of this Court within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (v) It is made clear that the order passed herein today in this petition shall not act as a precedent for all cases. This order is passed considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12