- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3017 WP No. 107332 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 107332 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: KUMAR SHIVANAND MARUTI AKKI, AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. CHIKKUR PLOT AT POST. RAINAPUR, TQ. SAVANDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI- 591129. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARAD MALGOUND PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, KARNATAKA STATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICE, 1, ANNASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD, HERMIT COLONY, SIVANCHETTI GARDENS, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA- 560042. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION, KARNATAKA FIRE SERVICE, 1, ANNASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD, HERMIT COLONY, SIVANCHETTI GARDENS, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA- 560042. 3. CHIEF FIRE SERVICE OFFICER, KARNATAKA FIRE SERVICE, HUBBALLI- 580020. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3017 WP No. 107332 of 2024 4. REGIONAL FIRE SERVICE OFFICER, HUBLI DIVISION, HUBBALLI- 580020. 5. DISTRICT FIRE SERVICE OFFICER, BELAGAVI DISTRICT FIRE SERVICE, BELAGAVI- 590001. 6. FIRE SERVICE OFFICER, BAILHONGAL FIRE STATION, BAILHONGAL- 591102, BELGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTHILATA R. PATIL, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER FAVORABLY THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-C, DATED 27-03-2021. B. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER(S) AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to consider representation submitted on 27.03.2021 to respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Sharad Malgound Patil appearing for the petitioner and the learned - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3017 WP No. 107332 of 2024 HCGP Smt.Kirthilata R.Patil representing the respondent- State. 3. The father of the petitioner was employed as a driver in the Karnataka Fire Department. He dies in harness on 04.12.2001. At the time of the death of the father of the petitioner, he was 10 years old. Therefore, waits till he attains the age of 18 years and submits a representation on 27.03.2021 seeking an appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the death of his father which had by then happened 2 decades ago. The representation is not considered by the State and therefore the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if a direction is issued to consider the representation of the petitioner that would suffice for the present. 5. The HCGP would seek dismissal of the petition on account of delay. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3017 WP No. 107332 of 2024 6. What is sought by the petitioner is issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus. For an issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, there should be a semblance of right on the person who knocks at the doors of the Constitutional Court and then springs the obligation on the part of the State. The petitioner is the son of a person who was employed in the Karnataka Fire Department and dies in harness 24 years ago today. The family has sustained for 24 years and after 24 years, a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds only on the score that when the death of the father had happened the son was 10 years old and now he is 25 years old and it should be considered, will run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of J & K and others vs. Sajad Ahmad Mir, (2006)5 SCC 766, wherein the Apex Court has held as under: “11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3017 WP No. 107332 of 2024 applicant holding that he had sought 'compassion', the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 12. xxx 13.xxx 14. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors. [(1994) 4 SCC 138], it was ruled that public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and on merits. The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment. It is merely an exception to the requirement of law keeping in view the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. Such appointments on compassionate ground, therefore, have to be made in accordance with rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. This favorable treatment to the dependant of the deceased employee must have clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved thereby, i.e. relief against destitution. At the same time, however, it should not be forgotten that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3017 WP No. 107332 of 2024 millions and millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectation, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment, which are suddenly upturned. 15. In Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1989) 4 SCC 468], it was observed that in claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should be no delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. 16. Recently, in Commissioner of Public Instructions & Ors. v. K.R. Vishwanath, [(2005) 7 SCC 206], one of us (Pasayat, J.) had an occasion to consider the above decisions and the principles laid down therein have been reiterated. 17. In the case on hand, the father of the applicant died in March, 1987. The application was made by the applicant after four and half years in September, 1991 which was rejected in March, 1996. The writ petition was filed in June, 1999 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge in July, 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the date of death of the father of the applicant. The said fact was indeed a relevant and material fact which went to show that the family survived in spite of death of the employee. Moreover, in our opinion, the learned single Judge was also right in holding that though the order was passed in 1996, it was not challenged by the applicant immediately. He took chance of challenging the order in 1999 when there was inter- departmental communication in 1999. The Division Bench, in our view, hence ought not to have allowed the appeal.” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3017 WP No. 107332 of 2024 7. In the light of the aforesaid judgment and unequivocal facts, petition does not merit any consideration, petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31