- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18024 WP No. 102538 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 102538 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KAVERI W/O. BASAPPA DAVALAPUR AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SUNAGA, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587116. 2. SRI VEERESH S/O. BASAPPA DAVALAPUR AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. SUNAGA, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587116. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, JALABHAVAN, 1ST STAGE, NO.6, 1ST GHATTA, BTM LAY-OUT, BANNERAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560029. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.12.12 14:34:14 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18024 WP No. 102538 of 2022 VIJAYAPUR, NOW BAGALKOT, DIST-BAGALKOT-587101. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, SUB-DIVISION-II, HUNGUND, DIST.BAGALKOT-587118. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI DAYANAND BANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO ISSUE. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING SANKE.KA.JA.MA/H.R.D-2/CGA-2027/2006-07 DATED 17-11-2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING SANKE.KA.JA.MA/H.R.D-2/CGA-04/802/2007-08 DATED 22.09.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2. AND A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTS THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN TO APPOINT THE 2ND PETITIONER ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS IN THE RESPONDENTS DEPARTMENT BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT GOVERNMENT DATED 15.02.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-R. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PARTLY IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18024 WP No. 102538 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs: i. A writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement bearing SANKE.KA.JA.MA/H.R.D-2/CGA-2027/2006-07 dated 17-11-2006 vide Annexure-G issued by the respondent No.2 and impugned endorsement bearing SANKE.KA.JA.MA/H.R.D-2/CGA- 04/802/2007-08 dated 22.09.2007 vide Annexure- J issued by the respondent No.2. ii. A writ in the nature of mandamus directs the 2nd respondent herein to appoint the 2ND petitioner on compassionate grounds in the respondents department by considering the representation dated 31.01.2018 vide Annexure-M and in the light of the directions issued by the 1st respondent Government dated 15.02.2020 vide Annexure-R. iii. Any other Writ or direction of this Hon’ble Court is deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.H.M.Dharigond, appearing for petitioner, learned HCGP-Smt.Girija Hiremath, appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.Dayanand Bandi, appearing for respondents No.2 to 4. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18024 WP No. 102538 of 2022 3. The petitioner is said to be the son of a deceased employee who dies in harness on 02.07.2000. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner at the time when he submitted his application was still a minor and therefore the application comes to be rejected. Upon attaining majority, he again submits his application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. The State also is said to have recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 have not considered the same, despite the situation being the same as projected in the representations. The petitioner thus has submitted a representation all over again claiming that he is still in a destitute condition or the family is still in a destitute condition and the necessity of the employment is still subsisting. In that light, the representation is not being considered. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if a direction is issued for consideration of the representation would suffice for the present. 6. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances and without entering into the merit of the claim of the petitioner, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18024 WP No. 102538 of 2022 I deem it appropriate to direct respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass necessary orders thereon in accordance with law, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if not earlier. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/- LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31