ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
Page 0820
1. Petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 13th February 2002 bearing No. KANIEN(V)/SALEA/SALEA1/K54/9707-10 passed by the second respondent – Executive Engineer, Chikkaballapur, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner afresh in proper perspective and to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds.
2. The petitioner herein claims to be the daughter of late Sri. B. Rangappa, who was working as ‘watchman’ in Karnataka Electricity Board, at Bagepalli, and he died while in service on 25th September 1985, leaving Page 0821 behind the petitioner herein and his wife Smt. Adilakshmamma and there were no other children to late Sri. B. Rangappa. After lapse of nearly fifteen years, the mother of the petitioner, Smt. Adilakshmamma gave a representation to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds as she was the only daughter and had failed in SSLC. But unfortunately, the mother of the petitioner Smt. Adilakshmamma also died on 25thJune 2000 and that the mother of the petitioner was getting family pension and was also looking after the daily needs of petitioner. The petitioner, being unemployed and having no other source of income, after the death of the petitioner’s mother Smt. Adhilakshmamma also, and having left with no one to provide the daily needs to petitioner, she was constrained to give a representation to respondents to appoint her on compassionate grounds on account of the death of the father of the petitioner, late Sri. Rangappa. It is the case of petitioner that, the respondents, have neither considered the said application/representation filed by petitioner nor have they taken any decision nor appointed her on compassion grounds. Therefore, petitioner was constrained to send her request through the then Member of Parliament, Chikkaballapur constituency and also the then Minister of State for Power. Thereafter, again petitioner’s case was recommended by the Minister for Mines and Geology during 2001. Thereafter, the Assistant Executive Engineer, K.P.T.C.L Bagepalli, has forwarded the application filed by petitioner along with ten documents to the second respondent for his consideration vide Annexure M. The second respondent on the basis of the material available on file and the details furnished by third respondent, has considered the request of the petitioner and rejected her application for compassionate appointment on the ground that, petitioner has not produced necessary documents and has also not disclosed the true facts, as to whether she is the real daughter or adopted daughter of late Sri. B. Rangappa. Petitioner has stated that, she has passed SSLC during 1994, but has produced the Marks Card of IX standard and the School Transfer Certificate has been tampered with. The third respondent has made the spot inspection and after conducting enquiry, he has submitted the report, stating that, petitioner is the adopted daughter of the deceased Sri. B. Rangappa and that, petitioner has submitted false declaration in order to obtain appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the death of her late father, Sri. B. Rangappa, who was the employee of the respondents – KPTCL Accordingly, the application filed by petitioner was returned. Being aggrieved by the impugned endorsement issued by second respondent dated 13th February 2002 vide Annexure N and seeking appropriate reliefs, as slated supra, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition.
3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondents.
4. The principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, petitioner has filed the application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 5th December 1990. Thereafter, she has made Page 0822 several representations to consider her request for appointment on compassionate grounds, on account of the death of petitioner’s father, Sri. B. Rangappa. Her request for appointment on compassionate grounds was also forwarded by the then Minister for State for Power, Member of Parliament, Minister for Mines and Geology and the then M.L.A Srinivaspur. Even then the said request of petitioner was not considered. Further, learned Counsel for petitioner has taken me through the communication issued by the Assistant Secretary of the respondents – KPTCL dated 10th October 2000, wherein he has, on instructions, directed the Jurisdictional third respondent herein to submit all the papers submitted by petitioner. It is the case of petitioner that, instead of forwarding the same to the Deputy Secretary to Government, the second respondent has taken up the matter and passed the impugned order/endorsement without giving opportunity to the petitioner and without assigned any reasons for rejecting the said application and contrary to the material available on file. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned endorsement/order issued by second respondent is liable to be set aside on the ground that, the said endorsement issued is one without jurisdiction.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents – K.P.T.C.L (now called ‘Company’), inter alia, contended and substantiated the impugned endorsement issued by second respondent. She submitted that, the second respondent, being the competent authority, has taken up the matter, considered the case of petitioner and after due enquiry and spot inspection, has rejected the case of petitioner on the basis of the material available on file and also with reference to the communication dated 26th July 1994 sent by the Chief Engineer, Bangalore, another communication dated 24th August 2001 and the report submitted by third respondent 1st January 2002. Further, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents -Company submitted that, the said authority has specifically pointed out in the impugned endorsement dated 13th February 2002 vide Annexure N, at item No. 5 that, as per the report submitted by third respondent, it is seen that, the petitioner has tampered with the transfer certificate and during spot inspection, it was found that, late Sri. B. Rangappa, employee of the respondents Company, had in fact no children at all and that, petitioner has submitted wrong declaration in order to obtain appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the date of late Sri. B. Rangappa. She further submitted that, since there were lot of lapses and wrong information furnished to the respondents -Company, which were crystal clear after making spot inspection and enquiry, the said authority has rejected the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment and returned the entire papers. Therefore, learned Counsel submitted that, the instant writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as misconceived.
6. After careful evaluation of the entire original records available on file and after considering the rival contentions urged by both counsel, the only question that arise for consideration in this case is as to:
Page 0823
[i] WHETHER the Impugned order/endorsement issued by second respondent is sustainable in law?
After careful perusal of the impugned endorsement issued by second respondent, it emerges that, the second respondent has not committed any error or illegality for the reason that, the said authority has assigned valid and cogent reasons for rejecting the case of petitioner, after conducting spot inspection and proper enquiry. Therefore, I am of the view that, the impugned endorsement is just and reasonable and I do not find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in issuing the impugned endorsement. It is significant to note that, the principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel for petitioner is that, petitioner has filed the application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 5thDecember 1990 vide Annexure D. Admittedly, even the said application has not been filed within the cut-off date.
Therefore, the said application made by petitioner claiming appointment on compassionate grounds itself is beyond the prescribed cut off period of limitation under the relevant provisions of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds and the learned Counsel for petitioner has not disputed the same. Further, as on the date of death of the father of the petitioner, petitioner was major, aged about eighteen years, one month, and five days and as rightly observed by second respondent in the impugned endorsement dated 13th February 2002, when the petitioner was asked to produce the copy of the earlier request made by her, she has failed to produce the same. In the earlier request during 1994 also, it is stated that, petitioner has not produced any information except stating that, she was the adopted daughter of late Sri. B. Rangappa, but in the new and subsequent application, petitioner has stated that, she is the real daughter of late Sri. B. Rangappa. Further, in the earlier application filed in 1994, petitioner has stated that, she has passed SSLC, but in the subsequent application, she has produced the copy of the Marks Card of IX standard and from the said copy of the Marks Card, it is crystal clear that, petitioner has tampered the said Marks Card. Therefore, all these aspects pointed by the authority go to prove that, petitioner has made these contradictory statements at various points of time only to suit her case. The reasons assigned by the authority proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, petitioner has not made the application with bona fide intention.
7. Another aspect is that, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has stated in the writ petition that, petitioner has completed SSLC course but has been declared ‘fail’. To substantiate the said submission, petitioner has produced Annexure P which is the SSLC Marks Card issued by the competent authority. From the said Marks Card, it can be seen that, petitioner has appeared for the said Examination during the month of April 1991 itself and not in 1994 as stated by petitioner in the earlier declaration submitted by her. Another aspect to be borne in mind is that, the third respondent has made the spot inspection and after due enquiry, Page 0824 has submitted his report dated 1st January 2002 bearing No. 1373:01.1.2002 stating that, petitioner is not the real daughter of late Sri. B. Rangappa and that, she has submitted the application only with an intention to obtain appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the death of Sri. B. Rangappa and that, the contradictory statements made by her suspicious in nature to obtain compassionate appointment.
8. Having regard to alt these aspects of the matter, I am of the considered view that, the second respondent has, after conducting proper enquiry and spot inspection, rightly issued the impugned endorsement holding that, the request of petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be accepted and returned the entire case papers. The said reasoning given by the said authority coupled with the report of the third respondent is just and reasonable. I do not find any good grounds to entertain the instant writ petition.
9. Another ground urged by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the impugned order passed by second respondent is one without jurisdiction. In my view, the said submission also has no legs to stand for the reason that, the second respondent is in fact the jurisdictional authority as the power has been delegated to the said authority, as pointed out by learned Counsel for respondents. Therefore, the said ground urged by learned Counsel for petitioner is also liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.