- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:589 WP No. 34192 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 34192 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI LAKSHMAN P SRI S/O LATE PAKEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO. 41, SIDDALINGANAGAR (VINI COLONY) MAGADI ROAD 1ST CROSS, BANGALORE 560023 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RAJESHWARI M., ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIRECTOR HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI ROAD BANGALORE 560023. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT/REPLY PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 05-11-2025, VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO ISSUE THE APPOINTMENT LETTER TO THE PETITIONER UPON THE COMPASSIONATE GROUND AND ETC. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:589 WP No. 34192 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the endorsement dated 05.11.2025 issued by the respondent, whereby the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that there is a discrepancy in the name of the petitioner’s father. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his father, Pakeerappa, was working as a Group ‘D’ employee in the respondent–Department. He joined service on 18.09.1989 and died on 07.02.2024 while in service. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner, who is the son of Pakeerappa, filed an application on 13.11.2024 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. It is stated that there is a discrepancy in the documents produced by the petitioner, namely the SSLC, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:589 WP No. 34192 of 2025 PUC, and degree marks cards, wherein the petitioner’s father’s name is shown as ‘Pakeerappa’ instead of ‘Pakeera’. The petitioner also filed an affidavit along with the application stating that ‘Pakeerappa’ and ‘Pakeera’ are one and the same person, and that the petitioner is the son of Pakeera, who was an employee working in the respondent–Department. Without considering this aspect of the matter, and solely on the ground that in the school and college records produced by the petitioner the name of the father is mentioned as “Pakeerappa,” the impugned endorsement has been issued. Since the only discrepancy is in the name of the petitioner’s father, the impugned endorsement is liable to be quashed. 4. Accordingly, the following order is passed. (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh by giving one more opportunity to the petitioner to produce additional - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:589 WP No. 34192 of 2025 documents to prove that Pakeera, the employee who was working in the respondent–Department, is the father of the petitioner. If required, the respondent may also draw a mahazar through the revenue authorities and reconsider the application filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 57