- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25550-DB WP No. 26353 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 26353 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: KRUSHA KUMAR C S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA S.K. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A SOMPURA VILLAGE, LAKKURU POST, RAMANATHAPORA HOBLI, ARAKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER (ADMN) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25550-DB WP No. 26353 of 2024 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, COMMISISONER OFFICE PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN.), DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU - 578004. 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER PERIYAPATTANA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B RAVINDRANATH, AGA) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20/03/2024 IN APPLICATION NO.1170/2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25550-DB WP No. 26353 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 20.03.2024 in Application No.1170/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”), wherein petitioner’s challenge to the order of discharge dated 11.08.2020 under Rule 6(2) of Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 (for short “1977 Rules”) is dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: Petitioner’s father was working as Head Master in the Education Department and on 07.06.2013, he died while he was in service. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have submitted an application on 03.01.2014 requesting for an appointment on compassionate ground. Considering petitioner’s application, the respondents provided appointment on compassionate ground on 20.11.2024 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25550-DB WP No. 26353 of 2024 (Annexure-A2) as Primary School Teacher, with a condition that the petitioner shall pass Teachers Eligibility Test (for short “TET”) within 3 years from the date of appointment. As the petitioner failed to pass TET in terms of the conditions of order of appointment, the petitioner was not sanctioned annual increments. Against which, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in Application No.5337/2020. The Tribunal, by order dated 14.09.2021 upheld the action of the Authorities in denying the annual increments to the petitioner. The said order was the subject matter of W.P.No.19795/2021 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 21.12.2021 rejected the writ petition upholding the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the Authorities, denying annual increments to the petitioner and held that the petitioner was required to pass the TET within the time prescribed in the order of appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with show-cause notice on 01.06.2022 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why he shall not be discharged - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25550-DB WP No. 26353 of 2024 from service for non fulfilling the condition of passing TET within 3 years. Subsequently, the impugned order of discharge dated 11.08.2022 (Annexure-A6) was passed, discharging the petitioner from service in exercise of power under Rule 6(2) of 1977 Rules. Questioning the said order of discharge, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated application. The Tribunal, under the impugned order dated 20.03.2024 dismissed petitioner’s application holding that as there is violation of condition No.12 of order of appointment that the petitioner has failed to pass TET, held that the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief. Questioning the said order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Badri Vishal for petitioner and learned AGA Sri.B.Ravindranath for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25550-DB WP No. 26353 of 2024 under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Ground) Rules, 1996 (for short “1996 Rules”), in view of the fact that petitioner’s father who was working as Head Master in the Education Department died while in service on 07.06.2013. As on the date of appointment, the petitioner had the qualification of SSLC and TCH, but he had not passed TET which was made compulsory by the Government in terms of Government Order dated 21.01.2013. Learned counsel would submit that the respondents ought to have provided compassionate appointment to the petitioner depending on his educational qualification. If the petitioner had no qualification to hold the post of Primary School Teacher, it was for the respondents to provide any other job, to which the petitioner was qualified and eligible. Learned counsel would further submit that it is a fact that the petitioner could not comply condition No.12 i.e. to pass TET within the time provided or till this date. However, he submits that action of the respondents in discharging the petitioner - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25550-DB WP No. 26353 of 2024 from service is totally arbitrary and opposed to 1996 rules. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner would be entitled for compassionate appointment to a post depending on his educational qualification. Learned counsel contended that compassionate appointment is provided to the petitioner to overcome the financial crisis due to death of a bread earner in the family i.e., his father. If the petitioner is discharged, the purpose of providing compassionate appointment would be defeated. Further, learned counsel places reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MD.ZAMIL AHMED v/s STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (2016) 12 SCC 342 as well as the order passed in Civil Appeal No.735/2013 dated 18.01.2013 BRIJESH VIPIN CHANDRA SHAH v/s STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned AGA Sri.Ravindranath for respondents would support the order passed by the Authorities as well as the Tribunal and submitted that as - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25550-DB WP No. 26353 of 2024 the petitioner has failed to fulfill condition No.12, passing TET, the respondent-Authorities had no option but to discharge the petitioner from service. Further, learned AGA submits that passing of TET was made compulsory under Government Order dated 21.01.2013 and the petitioner was appointed as Primary School Teacher with a condition that the petitioner shall pass TET within 3 years from the date of appointment. Having failed to comply the condition of passing TET, the petitioner would not be entitled for continuing as Primary School Teacher. Further, learned AGA would submit that till today, the petitioner has not questioned Condition No.12 which required the petitioner to pass TET. As the petitioner has not challenged the said condition, the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the points that arise for our consideration are as to - - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25550-DB WP No. 26353 of 2024 (i) Whether the petitioner would be entitled to continue in service? (ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal requires interference at the hands of this Court? 7. Answer to both the above points would be in the affirmative for the following reasons: It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner was working as Head Master in the Education Department who died while in service on 07.06.2013. On the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, the petitioner was appointed as Primary School Teacher by order of appointment dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure-A2). As on the date of petitioner’s appointment, qualification prescribed under Cadre and Recruitment Rules for the post of Primary School Teacher was pass in SSLC and TCH. By Government Order dated 21.01.2013, the Government had made compulsory passing of Teachers Eligibility Test, as per the direction of NCTE. Though the petitioner had the qualification of SSLC and TCH, he had not passed TET as on the date of his - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25550-DB WP No. 26353 of 2024 appointment on 20.11.2014. The appointment order contained condition No.12 that the petitioner shall pass TET within 3 years from the date of appointment. In the meanwhile, annual increments to the petitioner was denied, against which, he had approached the Tribunal as well as this Court. This Court by order dated 21.12.2021 in W.P.No.19795/2021 upheld the action of the respondents in denying the annual increments for not passing TET. 8. Be that as it may, in the State of Karnataka, the appointment on compassionate grounds shall be made in terms of 1996 Rules. Rule 3 of 1996 Rules would state that the appointment on compassionate grounds shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a matter of course. Rule 4 of 1996 Rules stipulates conditions of appointment. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 4 of 1996 Rules which is relevant for the present case reads as follows: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25550-DB WP No. 26353 of 2024 “4.4. The appointment on compassionate ground shall be confined to any post in Group-C or Group D, depending upon the qualification specified for the post.” In terms of sub-Rule (5) of Rule 4 of 1996 Rules, the appointment shall be made only against a direct recruitment vacancy. 9. In the instant case, the Appointing Authority could not have appointed the petitioner as Primary School Teacher as he was not possessing requisite qualification to hold the said post i.e., non-passing of TET. In terms of Rule 4(4) of 1996 Rules, the respondent-Authorities ought to have appointed the petitioner to a post depending on the qualification possessed by the petitioner i.e., either to the post of Second Division Assistant or to a Class IV Post as on the said date. 10. It is an admitted fact that till this date, the petitioner has not passed TET. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim to continue as Primary School Teacher. However, he would be entitled for compassionate appointment in any - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25550-DB WP No. 26353 of 2024 other post depending on his educational qualification. The purpose of providing the compassionate appointment is to enable the dependants of deceased government servant to tied over the financial distress or difficulties due to death of bread earner of the family. In an identical fact situation in BRIJESH VIPIN CHANDRA SHAH (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the case of appointment on compassionate ground has made it clear that no relaxation could be granted with regard to qualification and at the same time held that if the compassionate appointee is not entitled to continue in Class-III post at least they should be provided Class-IV post. Relevant paragraphs 6 to 9 reads as follows: “6. Having considered the entire matter, we are of the opinion that no relaxation could have been granted in favour of the Appellant in the qualifications which are said to be mandatory for recruitment to Class III post. 7. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that having worked for about 12 years, the Appellant cannot now be rendered jobless. Even - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25550-DB WP No. 26353 of 2024 though he is not entitled to a Class III post, he would be certainly entitled to a Class IV post on compassionate grounds. He, therefore, prays that the Appellant may be permitted to continue on Class IV post. However, this request is vehemently opposed by the learned Counsel for the Respondents and the he submits that once the Appellant had been appointed on Class III post, he cannot be considered for regularizing his service on a Class IV post. 8. We are of the considered opinion that the stand taken by the Respondents is unnecessarily harsh. It must be remembered that the Appellant was initially appointed on compassionate grounds as his father had died while he was in service. Compassionate appointment is made by relaxation of the normal service rules for providing immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased who dies in harness. It is unfortunate that the Appellant was unable to pass the in-service examination so as to enable him to continue on a Class III post. But that ought not to result in depriving him of service altogether. 9. In view of the above, we allow this appeal and direct the Respondents to appoint the Appellant on a Class IV post. The appointment of the Appellant on a Class IV post shall be from the date he was initially - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25550-DB WP No. 26353 of 2024 appointed on Class III post. His seniority shall be reckoned from the date of initial appointment. However, the Appellant shall not be entitled to any back-wages since he has not worked, on any of the posts, after the date of termination of his services.” 11. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed as Primary School Teacher on 20.11.2014 and he continued to work as such till 16.08.2022 i.e., till he was discharged from service. Rule 6(1) of Probation Rules requires approval of the Higher Authority before giving effect to discharge order passed under Rule 6(2) of Probation Rules. The discharge order dated 11.08.2022 is given effect to, without obtaining approval as required under Probation Rules. 12. The Tribunal failed to examine Rule 4(4) of 1996 Rules and proceeded to reject petitioner’s application solely on the ground that there is violation of condition No.12 of order of appointment. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25550-DB WP No. 26353 of 2024 13. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 20.03.2024 in Application No.1170/2023 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Consequently, the order of discharge dated 11.08.2022 bearing No.A2/5751/KAT Case-29/2020-21 (Annexure- A6) is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service in any Class-III or Class-IV post, depending on his educational qualification. The petitioner would be entitled for all consequential benefits except backwages. Time for compliance, three months from today. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MPK CT:bms