- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13774 WP No. 112468 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.112468 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN: INDIRA P. NUNGARI W/O. LATE PUNDALEEKAPPA NUNGARI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ATTENDER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ILKAL - 587 125, BAGALKOT DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. B. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, FISVESHWARAIAH TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT - 587 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13774 WP No. 112468 of 2017 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.DMA 11 AA.NE 2016-17/2472 DATED 05.09.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE – J) AND THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.DMA 11 AA.NE 2016-17 DATED 16.10.2016 (ANNEXURE – L) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND ARBITRARY ONE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY IN THE EYE OF LAW. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO MODIFY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER FROM ATTENDER (GROU-D) TO SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT (GROUP-C) WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATED OF HER APPOINTMENT AS ATTENDER (GROUP-D) I.E., 03.07.2012, AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS SUCH AS SERVICE BENFITS, MONETARY BENEFITS AND ALL OTHER BENEFITS FLOWING THERE FROM IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13774 WP No. 112468 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this court seeking the following prayer: i. Issue WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quashing the Impugned Endorsement bearing No. DMA 11 Aa.Ne 2016-17/2472 dated 05.09.2016 issued by the 2nd Respondent (Annexure – J) and the Impugned Endorsement bearing No. DMA 11 Aa.Ne 2016-17 dated 16.10.2016 (Annexure – L) issued by the 2nd Respondent holding the same as illegal, bad in law and arbitrary one, in the interest of justice and equity in the eye of law. ii. Issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the Respondents to modify the appointment of the Petitioner from Attender (Group-D) to Second Division Assistant (Group-C) with effect from the dated of her appointment as Attender (Group-D) i.e., 03.07.2012, and grant all consequential benefits such as service benfits, monetary benefits and all other benefits flowing there from in the interest of justice and equity in the eye of law. iii. Pass such other Order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and just in the matter in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents-State. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13774 WP No. 112468 of 2017 4. The husband of the petitioner was an employee of the Directorate of Municipal Administration in the cadre of Community Affairs Officer. He dies in harness on 14.07.2009. Immediately on the death of the husband, the sole breadwinner of the family, the petitioner submits an application before the authorities, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Pursuant to the application so filed, the petitioner appears to have been summoned for conduct of a test, towards her claim for appointment as a Second Division Assistant qua her qualification. A surprise written test was conducted, which led to the petitioner being appointed as an Attender and not as a Second Division Assistant as per her claim. 5. The petitioner accepts the offer out of dire need but submits a representation to the respondent-authority to rectify or correct the order by appointing the petitioner as Second Division Assistant qua her qualification. The petitioner also quoted instances of rectification of appointment orders in the representation so submitted to the respondent. The representation is turned down, and an order is passed on the score that once an appointment on compassionate grounds happens the same cannot be changed at a later circumstance on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13774 WP No. 112468 of 2017 any ground whatsoever. It is this that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 6. Shri K. B. Muralidhar., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Rules under which the appointment on compassionate ground, applications are processed, nowhere contemplates conduct of a test. General recruitment Rules are incorporated into the compassionate appointment Rules, without any rhyme or reason and at the whim and fancy of the Director of Municipal Administration, at the relevant point of time. The learned counsel would submit that the representation was clear that rectification ought to have ensued in light of the Directorate itself accepting the mistakes and rectifying appointments made on compassionate grounds in several cases. The learned counsel would submit that the issue in the lis is answered by judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate bench and that of the Division Bench. 7. Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State would take this Court through the statement of objections to defend the action, but is not in a position to dispute the position of law as is laid down by the Division Bench or by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13774 WP No. 112468 of 2017 the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and would submit that the petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate grounds, cannot choose the job, she seeks dismissal of the petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record. 9. The issue in the lis revolves around a narrow compass as to ‘whether the petitioner should be appointed as a Second Division Assistant or continue to work as an Attender for the post that she was offered’. 10. The husband of the petitioner dies in harness. Immediately thereafter, an application is filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The application of the petitioner is processed by conduct of a written test, which the rules did not contemplate. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner participates in the test, as she was condemned by penury at the relevant point in time. The test resulted in the petitioner being applied to the post of Attender and not Second Division Assistant qua qualification offered. The petitioner then accepted appointment out of dire need and then, submitted a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13774 WP No. 112468 of 2017 representation. The representation of the petitioner reads as follows: UÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: £À£Àß ¥Àw ²æà ¥ÀÅAqÀ°PÀ¥Àà ¦ £ÀÄAUÁj PÀªÀÄÆå¤n C¥sÉÃgïì D¦üÃgïì EªÀgÀ ªÀÄgÀt £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÁw Cfð ¸À°è¸ÀĪÁUÀ ºÉÆA¢zÉ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹. ±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉ C£ÀĸÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ '¹' zÀeÉð ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ £À£Àß PÉÆÃjPÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ '¹' zÀeÉð ¤ÃqÀzÉà 'r' zÀeÉð AiÀÄ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁrzÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£Àß ªÀiÁ¥Àðr¹ '¹' zÀeÉð ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀéAiÀĪÁV ªÀÄgÀÄ DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ. G¯ÉèÃR: 1) £À£ÀUÉ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ Cfð ¢: 23.11.2009 2) ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄSÁå¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ ºÀÄ£ÀUÀÄAzÀ EªÀgÀ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå:¥À¥À¥ÀAºÀÄ/¹§âA¢/2010.11 ¢£ÁAPÀ. 24.9.2010 3) ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃl EªÀgÀ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA:¥ÀŸÀ3/¹§âA¢/««/C£É/2010.11 ¢£ÁAPÀ 1.10.2010 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 16.4.2012 4) vÀªÀÄä PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ±Àð£ÀPÁÌV ¤ÃrzÀ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæ ¥Ë¤/¹§âA¢/DªÉÃ/¨Áf/¹Dgï-139/2010.11 ¢ 15.5.2012 5) vÀªÀÄä PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå ¥Ë¤/¹§âA¢/DªÉÃ/¹Dgï- 139/2010.11 ¢ : 5.6.2012 6) ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃl EªÀgÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå : ¥ÀŸÀw/¹§âA¢/CªÉÃ/¥À¥ÀAºÀĹ,Dgï.1/2012.13 ¢£ÀAPÀ:3.6.2012 7) £À£Àß «£ÀAw Cfð ¢£ÁAPÀ 18.7.2016 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13774 WP No. 112468 of 2017 8) vÀªÀÄä PÁAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ »A§gÀB ¸ÀASÉå:rJAJ/11/DªÉÃ/2016.17 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 5.9.2016 ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀ°è ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä «£ÀAw¥ÀǪÀðPÀªÁV G¯ÉèÃR(7)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀªÁV «£ÀAw¹zÀAvÉ ¸À£Áä£ÀågÀ°è ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä «ªÀgÀªÁV «£ÀAw¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, £À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀiÁzÀ ¢|| ²æà ¥ÀÅAqÀ°PÀ¥Àà £ÀÄAUÁj PÀªÀÄÄå¤n C¥sÉÃgïì D¦üøÀgï EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÁUÀ¯Éà ¢£ÁAPÀ : 14.7.2009gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄgÀt ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄgÀuÁ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀÄ £ÉÃgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ £À£ÀUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1996gÀrAiÀÄ°è ¤UÀ¢üvÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆA¢zÀ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹. «zÁåºÀðvÉUÀ£ÀĸÁgÀªÁV E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è SÁ° EgÀĪÀ '¹' zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ¢éwAiÀÄ zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁr DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀªÀÄÄavÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃR(1)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸À°èvÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅgÀ¸ÀÌj¹ ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄSÁå¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀÄ£ÀUÀÄAzÀ EªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¢éwAiÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CºÀðvÉ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅzÁV ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃl EªÀgÀ°è G¯ÉèÃR (2) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄSÁå¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀÄ£ÀUÀÄAzÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ '¹' zÀeÉðAiÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¥Áæ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁzÀ vÀªÀÄä PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄPÉÌ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ²¥sÁgÀ¹ì£ÉÆA¢UÉ G¯ÉèÃR(3)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ PÀ½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ¸À°èvÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ £À£ÀUÉ '¹' zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÁV G¯ÉèÃR(4)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀAzÀ±Àð£ÀPÉÌ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ½¹gÀÄwÛj. DzÀzÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ : 25.5,2012gÀAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÁV vÁªÀÅ £ÀqɹzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ±Àð£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß AiÀıÀ¹éAiÀiÁV ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è vÁªÀÅ £À£ÀUÉ '¹' zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ¢éwAiÀÄ zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw DzÉñÀ eÁj ªÀiÁqÀzÉ G¯ÉèÃR(5) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ 'r' zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁw DzÉñÀ eÁj ªÀiÁqÀzÉ G¯ÉèÃR(5)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ 'r' zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁr DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ £À£Àß ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃl EªÀgÀ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É »AzÀÄjV¹zÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ G¯ÉèÃR(6)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ 'r' zÀeÉðAiÀÄ DmÉAqÀgï ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13774 WP No. 112468 of 2017 EzÀjAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÀÄA¨Á C£ÁåAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ F PÀÄjvÀÄ DzÉñÀ eÁjAiÀiÁzÀ vÀPÀët vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃjPÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ RÄzÀÄÝ ºÁdgÁV £À£ÀUÉ £À£Àß «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀĸÁgÀ '¹' zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄgÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ PÉÆÃjzÁUÀ CªÀwÛ£À C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀåPÉÌ vÁªÀÅ F ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉêÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV 2 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è vÀªÀÄUÉ '¹' zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ªÀÄgÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ CAvÁ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À ºÉý PÀ½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄgÀ½ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è F PÀÄjvÀÄ ªÀÄgÀ½ PÉÆjPÉÆAqÁUÀ FUÀ EzÀPÉÌ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ CAvÁ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉý PÀ½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ F PÀÄjvÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR (7) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ °TvÀ PÉÆjPÉ ¸À°è¹zÀgÉ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR(8)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À°è CªÀPÁ±À«¯Áè CAvÁ ¸ÀÆa¹ »A§gÀºÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀjAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÀÄA¨Á C£ÁåAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ EAvÀºÀzÉ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è F jÃwAiÀiÁV ªÉÆzÀ®Ä 'r' zÀeÉðAiÀÄ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁr £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è CªÀgÀ PÉÆÃjPÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ CªÀjUÉ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ '¹' zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ªÀÄgÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀéAiÀĪÁV DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. CAvÀºÀzÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¥ÀÅgÀ¸À¨sÉ UÀļÉÃzÀUÀÄqÀØ ²æà n.JZï.zÁ¤ EªÀjUÉ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä PÁAdgÀªÉ¤ì zÀ¥sÉÃzÁgÀ 'r'zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁr £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è CªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw¹PÉÆAqÀ°è CªÀjUÉ £ÉÃgÀªÁV CªÀgÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ºÉÆA¢zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ¯É ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀéAiÀĪÁV '¹'zÀeÉðAiÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆA¢zÀ ©.J. ¥ÀzÀ«AiÀÄ£ÀĸÁgÀªÁV CªÀjUÉ ¥Àæ.zÀ.¸À ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¤Ãr, £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è CªÀjUÉ PÀZÉÃj ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀzÉÆãÀßw ¤ÃrgÀÄwÛj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÉà jÃwAiÀiÁV E®PÀ®è £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ²æà £À©¸Á§ PÀAzÀUÀ¯ï EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÆzÀ®Ä 'r' zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è vÀªÀÄä DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå : ¥Ë¤/PÉÃA¸À/¹§âA¢/(2)/375/89-90 ¢£ÁAPÀ : 17.4.1990 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁr £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ PÉÆÃjPÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå ¥Ë¤/PÉÃ.¸À./¹§âA¢(2)/375/89-90 ¢£ÁAPÀ : 28.4.1994gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ EªÀgÀ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹. «zÁåºÀðvÉ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄgÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁr DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. «zÁåºÀðvÉ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄgÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁr DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è DzÉñÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ²æà n.JZï.gÁ¤ EªÀgÀÄ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀÝjAzÀ EªÀjUÉ ¤ÃrzÀ F wzÀÄÝ¥Àr DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁV ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ F PÀÄjvÀÄ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è jmï ¸ÀASÉå : 24551/2000(5) 5 : 27.1.20045 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ EªÀgÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉUÉ C£ÀĸÁgÀªÁV ¤UÀ¢üvÀ '¹' zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁw DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¨ÉÃPÁVvÀÄÛ DzÀgÉ F PÀÄjvÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁr 'r' zÀeÉð ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¥ÁàVzÉ CAvÁ ªÀÄgÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ '¹' zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß JwÛ »rzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj »A¥ÀqÉzÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß C£ÀÄfðvÀUÉƽ¹ DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀ½ vÀªÀÄä DK±À ¸ÀASÉå: ¥Ë¤/¹§âA¢/¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ/¹Dgï-38/2001-02 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21.12.2004gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¢éwAiÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13774 WP No. 112468 of 2017 ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀÄwÛj., EzÀgÀAvÉ E£ÀÄß C£ÉÃPÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è F jÃwAiÀiÁV CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÁV Cfð ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄAavÀªÁV '¹' zÀeÉðUÉ ¨ÉÃPÁUÀĪÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉ ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ CªÀjUÉ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉUÀ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¤UÀ¢üvÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À°è DªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀAvÉ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃjPÉ ¸À°è¹zÀÝ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹zÀ 'r' zÀeÉðAiÀÄ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁw DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃjPÉ ¸À°è¹zÁUÀ CªÀgÀ PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ CªÀjUÉ CªÀgÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÁV Cfð ¸À°è¹zÁUÀ ºÉÆA¢zÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀĸÀgÀ CªÀjUÉ '¹' zÀeÉðAiÀÄ°è CªÀgÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ºÉÆA¢zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ¯Éà ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀéAiÀÄUÉƽ¹ ªÀÄgÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÁw wzÀÄÝ¥Àr DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁr ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ vÁªÀÅ £Á£ÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR(1)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀzÉà G¯ÉèÃR(8)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ »A§gÀºÀ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ vÀÄA¨Á C£ÁåAiÀĪÁzÀAvÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. AiÀiÁPÉAzÀgÉ £À£ÀßAvÀºÀ EgÀĪÀ E¤ßvÀgÉ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ½UÉ MAzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ, £À£ÀUÉ MAzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀĪÁzÀAvÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀÄ £À£Àß G¯ÉèÃR(7)gÀ°è ¸À°è¹zÀ PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä ªÀÄgÀÄ¥Àj²Ã°¹ £À£Àß ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ F ªÉÄÃ¯É G¯ÉèÃT¹zÀAvÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ £À£ÀUÉ £Á£ÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÁw Cfð ¸À°è¸ÀĪÁUÀ ºÁUÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆA¢zÀ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹. «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ £À£ÀUÉ '¹'zÀeÉðAiÀÄ J¸ï.r.J. ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃjPÉÆAqÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀAvÉ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀªÀgÀÄ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁrzÀAvÉ £À£Àß £ÉêÀÄPÁw ºÉÆA¢zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ ¢AzÀ ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀéAiÀĪÁV '¹' zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ¢éwAiÀÄ zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ CxÀªÁ PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ° ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄgÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÁw DzÉñÀ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁr DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À®Ä ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀ°è F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ «£ÀAw ¥ÀǪÀðPÀªÁV PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 26.09.2016” 11. The representation was in detail quoting instances of correction of employment, once offered on compassionate grounds. Notwithstanding the same, an endorsement is issued by the respondents declining to accept the claim of the petitioner. The endorsement reads as follows: »A§gÀºÀ “«µÀAiÀÄ : C£ÀÄPÀA¥À £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁrzÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ¥Àðr¹ ¹ zÀeÉðAiÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀéAiÀÄ DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13774 WP No. 112468 of 2017 G¯ÉèÃR : 1. F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå »A§gÀºÀ ¢: 05.09.2016 2. ¤ªÀÄä 2£Éà ªÀÄ£À« F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¹éÃPÀÈw ¢: 28.09.2016 ¢: 18.07.2016 gÀ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ°è ¤ªÀÄä «zÁåºÀðvÉ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹. ±ÉÊPÀët¼À CºÀðvÉUÀ£ÀĸÁgÀ UÀÆæ¥ï ¹ ªÀUÀðzÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ §zÀ¯ÁV r zÀeÉð ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ¥Àðr¹ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É MAzÀÄ ¨Áj MAzÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¨ÉÃgÉÆAzÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ªÀÄgÀÄ DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À°è CªÀPÁ±À PÀ°à¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¹ G¯ÉèÃR (1) gÀ°è »A§gÀºÀ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÁUÀÆå 2£Éà ¨Áj ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ°è MªÉÄä ªÀiÁrzÀ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ¥Àðr¹ «zÁåºÀðvÉ C£ÀĸÁgÀ ²æÃ.n.ºÉZï.zÁ¤ ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃ.£À©¸Á¨ï PÀAzÀUÀ¯ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃT¹ CzÀgÀAvÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è PÀÆqÀ ªÀiÁ¥ÁðqÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀgÉ, ²æÃ.n.ºÉZï.zÁ¤ ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃ.£À©Ã¸Á¨ï PÀAzÀUÀ¯ï EªÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀzÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ¥Àðr¹ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄä ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è C£Àé¬Ä¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ ¤ªÀÄUÉ C£ÀÄPÀA¥ÀzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¸ÀAzÀ±Àð£ÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ °TvÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉë £ÀqɸÀ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, UÀÆæ¥ï ¹ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ CºÀðgÀ¯ÁèªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ UÀÆæ¥ï r ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸À®Ä gÀºÀ«®èªÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ.” 12. The endorsement is that once an appointment on compassionate grounds is made and accepted, it cannot be changed on whatever ground it is. The issue whether it could be changed or otherwise or the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds is to be considered qua the qualification need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of H.N. Guru Prasad vs. The Director of Municipal Administration and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13774 WP No. 112468 of 2017 • • others in Writ Petition No.32634 of 2003, while answering a similar circumstance has held as follows; “Accordingly the petitioner reported to the respondent o.1. Another appointment order came to be issued on 21.7.1992 directing the petitioner to report at the office of the Municipal Commissioner, Hospet. Though the respondents had taken note of the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment to the post of a First Division Assistant, by such time there was no consideration in posting the petitioner, as First Division Assistant at Hospet. The petitioner therefore made a further representation, requesting for consideration of his appointment as a First Division Assistant. This representation is pending and the petitioner would point out that in so far as the other employees are concerned, the respondents have chosen to accommodate such similarly placed employees, who had been appointed on compassionate grounds, and who had in the meanwhile acquired eligibility, for higher positions. They have been so appointed to such higher position with retrospective effect, but the same benefit is not being accorded to the petitioner, who is eligible for such appointment. The petitioner has placed on record several instances as per Annexures "L", "M" and "N". The petitioner having approached this court by way of a writ petition in W,P.44104/01 seeking a direction to consider his representation which was pending consideration before respondent No.1, this court had directed the respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner and the petitioner had also submitted a further representation as on 7.12.2001. The respondent No.1 however rejected the request of the petitioner. This is in the face of other instances where the respondents have proceeded to provide relief in respect of other employees as per Annexures "T", "U"," T" and "Y". The counsel for the petitioner would also point out that the Government, by an order dated 24.4.2003, has specifically directed that in all cases for appointment on compassionate grounds, they shall be considered on the basis of the educational qualification of the candidates. It is further specified that if the candidate is a graduate, the appointment shall be made to the post of a First Division Assistant. Inspite of this position, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner, while accommodating others, which is clearly discriminatory - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13774 WP No. 112468 of 2017 and arbitrary and would require this court to interfere, in the interest of justice. 2. The respondent State has not chosen to file its statement of objections. However, Shri. S.Z.A. Khureshi, Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents would state that since the petitioner was not a graduate on the date of his first application, it was not incumbent on the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a First Division Assistant and since his inter representation which was filed beyond time, could not be taken into consideration. However, he would have no answer in so far as the other persons who have been accommodated by the respondents and hence, in my opinion, it is clearly arbitrary on the part of the respondents to deny appointment to the petitioner as a First Division Assistant, after he has graduated with a B.Com. degree. 3. Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned Annexure "S" is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as a First Division Assistant in the available vacancy within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Such appointment shall be effective with effect from 15.7.1992 with continuity of service.” 13. The said judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench is tossed before the Division Bench, only to be dismissed with imposition of costs. The Division Bench holds as follows: “2. The admitted facts of the case are that the respondent writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 32634 of 2003 when he was 19 years old and studying second year B.Com., his father who was working as a Junior Health Inspector died in harness. Hence he applied for compassionate appointment and that apart the respondent-writ petitioner was also a physically challenged person. Despite he applied on 13.06.1990 for the post of Second Division Assistant, the respondents had not considered his application immediately In the meanwhile, he completed his degree and thereafter. graduated in April 1992 and - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13774 WP No. 112468 of 2017 became qualified for the post of First But on 21.07.1992 the respondent without Division Assistant taking into consideration the degree qualification appointed him only as a Second Division Assistant, which necessitated the writ petitioner of course after joining duty in the post of Second Division Assistant to make further representation to consider him for the post of First Division Assistant. He also made a representation on 02.07.1992, but the respondents rejected the said representation. A further representation on 07.12.2001 was inade requesting the respondents for appointing him as the First Division Assistant and as no orders were passed, Writ Petition No. 32634 of 2003 was filed seeking for a writ of mandanus to consider his representation to appoint him in the post of First Division Assistant. In fact, the Commissioner of the City Municipal Corporation also by proceedings dated 09.07.1992 recommended the petitioner to the post of First Division Assistant. Taking all these facts into consideration, the learned Single Judge by order dated 14.06.2006 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as a First Division Assistant in the available vacancy within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Hence aggrieved by the said order, the State has filed the present writ appeal. 3. According to the learned Government Advocate, as per Rule 6(4) once an appointment is made under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, it shall be final and no fresh appointment to a different post or a higher post under these rules shall be permissible. 4. In our considered opinion, the above rule is not attracted to the facts of this case at all. if the authorities had overlooked the qualification the applicant already possessed at the time of his appointment and also ignored the representation of the applicant mainly because the authorities have passed an appointment order to a lower post, will not take away the right of the petitioner to claim - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13774 WP No. 112468 of 2017 the higher post. Therefore, in our considered opinion Section 6(4) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. But at the same time, we find the respondent-writ petitioner was unnecessarily harassed for the past 17 years by the respondents. Hence we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to award exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/-. Writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.” In terms of the judgment of the Division Bench, the rectification was made and the appointment was offered qua the qualification of the petitioner or the applicant therein. 14. In the light of the circumstance as afore-narrated with regard to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench and the Division Bench (supra). The petitioner was entitled to be appointed as a Second Division Assistant and has been erroneously appointed as an Attender and has spent now close to 8 years as an Attender. The fact that the petitioner took employment at the time when she was offered, is of no avail, as a widow of the employee who died in harness, was wanting employment. Merely because the offer was accepted by a widow, who was condemned by penury, at that point in time, cannot - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13774 WP No. 112468 of 2017 mean that the acceptance of such offer, would travel as a shadow to the petitioner all her life. 15. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed and the order offering the appointment on compassionate grounds to that of an Attender would necessarily to be obliterated. As a result of which, the petitioner becomes entitled to be appointed as a Second Division Assistant from the date on which she was appointed as an Attender with all consequential benefits except arrears of salary, as the petitioner has not worked. For the aforesaid reason, the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed-in-part. ii. The impugned endorsements dated 05.09.2016 at Annexure-J and 16.10.2016 at Annexure-L, stands quashed. iii. The petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the post of Second Division Assistant from the date on which she was appointed as an Attender. iv. The career of the petitioner shall travel from the date of her appointment as Attender in place of a Second Division Assistant with all consequential benefits except the arrears of - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13774 WP No. 112468 of 2017 salary as the petitioner has not worked as a Second Division Assistant all these years. But the service of the petitioner shall be taken note of for the purpose of seniority, pay fixation and calculation of terminal benefits at the relevant point in time. v. The appointment of aforesaid petitioner as the Second Division Assistant and compliance with all other directions quoted shall happen within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, if not earlier. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 100