- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8618 WP No. 101736 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.101736 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SMT. NETRA W/O KIRAN BUDIHAL, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. NOW C/O. HANAMANTAPPA SIDDAPPA BELLATTI, KUMBARONI, LAKKUNDI-582115, TQ: DIST: GADAG-582115. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, #M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED, HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI-581110. 3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED, SAVANUR DEPOT-581118, DIST: HAVERI-581118. VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.07.16 14:35:12 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8618 WP No. 101736 of 2025 4. SMT. SHARAVVA W/O BIDDADEPPA BUDIHAL, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. SHIGLI, TQ: LAXMESHWAR, DIST: GADAG-582210. 5. SMT. LAXMI D/O BIDDADEPPA BUDIHAL, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. SHIGLI, TQ: LAXMESHWAR, DIST: GADAG-582210. 6. SRI. HANAMANTAPPA S/O BIDDADEPPA BUDIHAL, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIGLI, TQ: LAXMESHWAR, DIST: GADAG-582210. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PRASHANT HOSMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; NOTICE TO R4 TO R6 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING 6/677/2022-2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-D AS NULL AND VOID AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8618 WP No. 101736 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. Heard learned counsel Sri.Dinesh M.Kulkarni for the petitioner. Learned HCGP Sri.P.N.Hatti is directed to take notice for respondent No.1. Learned counsel Sri.Prashant Hosmani is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. Notice to respondent Nos.4 to 6 is dispensed, as no adverse orders are passed against them by this Court. 3. Petitioner is a legally wedded wife of Kiran Budihal, having got married on 13.08.2020 at Lakkundi Village, Taluk and District Gadag. Petitioner’s husband Kiran was working as a conductor in Savanur depot in North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. Unfortunately while in service, her husband died on 13.01.2022. Petitioner after the death of her husband in service, filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds before the 5th respondent- Corporation to appoint her in the place of her husband on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8618 WP No. 101736 of 2025 compassionate grounds. Respondent No.2 issued an endorsement stating that the husband of the petitioner had not got her name entered in the list of nominees in the service record. Therefore, the appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be considered and she would have to get a proper certification or order from the Court for consideration of the same. 4. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of petitioner and her husband Kiran, who was an employee of the Corporation. Her husband Kiran was employed in the Corporation in the year 2015 when she was not married. Hence the question of entering her name had not arisen. No doubt the names of the mother and siblings of the husband of petitioner is entered in the service record, which finds a place as reflected in the endorsement given by the Corporation. 5. Be that as it may, it is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that once the petitioner has got - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8618 WP No. 101736 of 2025 married and her husband, though has not included her name in the nominees in the service register records, she would stand as the first chance of employment on compassionate grounds of being the Class-I legal heir, as against the other respondents. Hence, aggrieved by the endorsement for non-appointment on compassionate grounds, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would fall within the definition of ‘family’ and she would be in a better position to get the employment than the respondents falling in the next category, if not for the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner instead of providing the endorsement to obtain an order from the Court. 7. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents contend that the endorsement is rightly given by the respondents as the name of petitioner is not found place in the service records as nominee, so it cannot be assumed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8618 WP No. 101736 of 2025 that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife and legal heir to be entitled for compassionate appointment unless she produces relevant documents for the satisfaction of the respondent-Corporation. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 9. Petitioner has produced the marriage invitation card and the Aadhar card, which depicts that she got married to Kiran, the deceased employee of the Corporation and she has also produced the Aadhar card which clearly depicts the name of her husband Kiran Budihal in the Aadhar card and the fact remains that the deceased employee was employed in the year 2015 and the petitioner having got married in 2020, the question of making the petitioner as a nominee in the service records had not arisen. That cannot be found fault with. However, it becomes the duty of the respondent-Corporation in such cases to look into the documents of the petitioner and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8618 WP No. 101736 of 2025 other nominees available in the service register, conduct an enquiry, if required and on being satisfied with the documents produced, pass suitable orders in favour of one of the members of the family for appointment in accordance with law, which has not been done in the present case, as merely an endorsement is issued directing the petitioner to secure an order from the Court. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that such endorsements should not be issued in a mechanical manner and some enquiry is required to be conducted by the respondent Corporation and pass suitable orders without driving the petitioner to the Court, which will minimize the litigation and the agony and pain already undergone by the petitioner and the respondents for that matter. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The endorsement issued by the respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8618 WP No. 101736 of 2025 iii. Writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent-Corporation to consider the application of the petitioner on the basis of the documents produced and any other documents that would be produced by the petitioner to show and prove that she is legally married and entitled to the appointment on compassionate grounds. iv. The respondent No.2 shall also consider any objections from respondent Nos.4 to 6 in its manner, if any such objections or applications are given, and pass an order in accordance with law by providing proper opportunity and hearing to all concerned parties. v. The exercise shall be conducted within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE KGK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6