- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13893 WP No. 34501 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.34501 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI MAHENDRA KUMAR N S/O LATE SRI NAGALINGASWAMY N AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NO.J-12, ATTIMARAMMA TEMPLE STREET 3RD MAIN ROAD, COTTONPET CROSS KURUBARAPET, BENGALURU – 560 053. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. S VIDYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, ROOM NO.33, GROUND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. THE REGISTRAR PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT CITY CIVIL COURT BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. SMT. SHARADA W/O LATE SRI NAGALINGASWAMY N AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.10/11 MUTHYALAMMA KOIL STREET, BHARATHINAGAR BBMP, BENGALURU – 560 001. 4. SRI. VARUN KUMAR N S/O LATE SRI NAGALINGASWAMY N AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.10/11 MUTHYALAMMA KOIL STREET, Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13893 WP No. 34501 of 2025 BHARATHINAGAR, BBMP BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R-1; SMT. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI. SIDHARTH BABU RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 16.08.2025 IN NO.ADM-I(A)/643/2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT MARKED AS ANNEXURE- A OF THE PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Quashing the Endorsement dated 16.08.2025 in No.ADM-1(A)/643/2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent marked as Annexure-A of the petition. (ii) Directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the representations made by the petitioner as per Annexure-E dated 12.08.2023 and to appoint him on compassionate grounds as per the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Amended Rules, 2021. (iii) Pass such other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13893 WP No. 34501 of 2025 respectively and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is the elder son of Late Nagalingaswamy and Late Smt. Shobha, while respondent No.4 is their younger son. During the lifetime of the said Nagalingaswamy, who was working as a SDA in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, the aforesaid Smt. Shobha, mother of petitioner and respondent No.4 expired on 02.11.2013, subsequent to which the said Nagalingaswamy married respondent No.3, Smt. Sharada, but no children were born from out of the wedlock. It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the said Nagalingaswamy expired on 19.07.2023 while in service, as a result of which, the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 became entitled to seek compassionate appointment in terms of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short “the said Rules of 1996”). Accordingly, the petitioner having sought for appointment on compassionate grounds, the same was rejected by respondent No.2, who issued the impugned intimation on the ground that respondent No.3/widow had chosen respondent No.4 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13893 WP No. 34501 of 2025 to be appointed on compassionate grounds. Aggrieved by the impugned intimation at Annexure-A dated 16.08.2025, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition inter alia contending that since he was the elder son of late Nagalingaswamy as against respondent No.4, who was the younger son, the petitioner had priority over respondent No.4 as per the note appended to Rule 3 of the said Rules of 1996. The said contention urged by the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the clear language employed in Rule 3 of the said Rules of 1996, which reads as under: “3. Eligibility for appointment:- (1) Appointment on compassionate grounds under these rules shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a matter of course. (2) Appointment under these rules shall be restricted to the dependent of a deceased Government Servant in the following order of preference, namely:- [(i) in the case of the deceased male married Government Servant, - (a) the widow; and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13893 WP No. 34501 of 2025 (b) son or daughter who is chosen by the widow of the deceased Government Servant, if the widow is not eligible or for any valid reason she is not willing to accept the appointment”. who were dependent on him and were living with him. Note: In case spouse is pre-deceased then preference shall be given in the order of age of children. “(ia) in the case of the deceased male unmarried Government Servant, his brother or sister, who is chosen by father and mother or in case of difference in their opinion, chosen by mother, who were dependent upon him and were living with him”. Note: In case parents are pre-deceased then preference shall be given in the order of age of brother/sister. “(ii) in the case of the deceased female married Government Servant ; (a) son or daughter who is chosen by the widower of the deceased Government Servant; and (b) widower; if the son or daughter are not eligible or for any valid reason they are not willing to accept the appointment”. who were dependent on her and were living with her. Note: In case spouse is pre-deceased then preference shall be given in the order of age of children.] - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13893 WP No. 34501 of 2025 [(iia) in the case of the deceased female unmarried Government Servant, her brother or sister, who is chosen by father and mother or in case of difference in their opinion, chosen by mother, who were dependent upon her and were living with her.] Note: In case parents are pre-deceased then preference shall be given in the order of age of brother/sister.] [(iii) in the case of deceased married Government Servant whose spouse is also no more and who has minor children, certified guardian of the minor children who is living with them and takes care of the minor children as per the provisions of relevant law.] (3) [xxxxx] Omitted [(4) A person against whom at the time of making application a criminal case is under investigation or trial, on the charge of having committed murder of the deceased government Servant or for abetting the commission of such offence shall not be eligible for appointment under these rules.] 3A. [xxxxx] Omitted” 4. [xxxxx] Omitted” 4. As can be seen from a plain reading of Rule 3, the preference would be given in the order of age of a children of a deceased Male Government Servant (Nagalingaswamy) only in the event his widow/spouse had pre-deceased him; in the instant case, though Smt. Shobha (first wife) and mother of the petitioner and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13893 WP No. 34501 of 2025 respondent No.4 had pre-deceased Nagalingaswamy, since he got married to respondent No.3 subsequently, Rule 3(2)(i)(a) and (b) would apply to the factual matrix obtaining in the instant case and in the light of respondent No.3 not willing to accept the appointment and choosing respondent No.4 since she was dependant on him and living with him, respondent No.2 was fully justified in rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment put forth by the petitioner by issuing the impugned intimation, which is clearly in accordance with law and the said Rules of 1996. 5. In addition thereto, in order to ascertain as to whether respondent No.3 – widow was living with respondent No.4 and was dependant on him and had actually chosen him for the purpose of compassionate appointment, since she was not willing to accept the same, this Court directed both petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be present before this Court on 06.03.2026, pursuant to which all of them were physically before this court on that day. Upon enquiries, respondent No.3 categorically stated that she was living with and dependant on respondent No.4, the younger son of Nagalingaswamy and she had voluntarily not accepted the compassionate appointment and had chosen to nominate - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13893 WP No. 34501 of 2025 respondent No.4 as the person in whose favour compassionate appointment is to be granted. Under these circumstances also, I am of the view that the impugned intimation issued by respondent No.2 rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment by the petitioner does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV/BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3