U '. ' ..... .. 'V (3Y«s:éI. :'P.,i§§ciEv§§DRA !a}MAR sumsav, ADV.) '~._RND 227 QF' THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYIRG TO QUASH V' 'THE VEJSIDORSEMENT DATED 7.8.2003 VIBE ANIVEXURE-H SINCE 'F!fiE _ EFFEDORSEMENT IS TOTALLY UNJUST, ARSITRARY ANS OF ARTICLES 1.4 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. VA ~ "TMADE THE FOLLOWING:--- IN THE HIGH couar or KARNATAKA AT 3ANGA1;op'p1oi_§*nt:1ient " it
on compamonate grounos one—to’ the”resPorident to
immediawy appoint hire’-in fleofpropnate post on
cornpossionate {$f0tinde_”‘”a’na:l’;tn_:’ The writ
petition reveoie respondent time
and agei.n…_ parties would have
come to an had the rmpondmt taken a
firm decieimj on the or not of the petitioner for
apbtfligtment on oonjpavosionate grounds. The litigation for
on compassionate grounds, which
flue year 1997, dfipite several rounds of
H V’ _ iitigo’tion.,’,: is otiii pending. In View of the intervening time
i factor and not on any other ground, the petitioner is not
to the relief. I can only sympathize with his piight
-and express my anguish at the inconsistent and changing
/<3
3
stand of the respondent in the matter, keeping in vl,eoii:’the.vv
age old saying that, a hard case shouid not make
2. The petitioner’s father-._ oi=jie..:’
working as a sweeper in the”UniyerVs”J’i:y’V’—-Vvisiraweraiohv
Engineering Coiiege Haste! of
to the petitioner, his mete-ie.«: on o1.oo.19s9
after informing wouid be going
to office, to attend’ doztieo, he did not
return are not known. A
complaint regord!’ng.__i;ni$si.ng’…of.theHsaid person was iodged
with the ;5o._|ir:e, Svh-do”:§fier«-..’fe§i-staring the case, informed
the family said Ramaieh could not be
thflewefiorts to trace petitioners father
i~*ent’_in’ iietiitioner approached the respondent giving
_infori’netion’ aidbont the missing of his father and requfiong
oppointment on compassionate grounds by stating
that-».the family is. in penury. The rapondmt on
‘:”V.<:ot{sideration of the application for appointment on
Ncompassionate grounds, issued an endofiernent dated
/'
16.91.1997 directing the petitioner to produce
certificate of his father. Since the petitione_af'Hs':"i';a:tr:gf.
only missing and since he had no %§ns$§i'sdgg oi'
could not obtain and producgwthe
father. In the circumstances, héfiisd w.P.._ to it
quash ths said endorssnjent that,
in the peculiar drcumstsijicés. is produce the
death <:ert£i'icz_:'i:'e"'j.;1T.t.§i" iffaétiiiar-xsiniis. responwnt M
dlrmted on compassic-nan
grounds. dismissed for non»
prosscnt:«sn~ on The wihoner having been
advised toti'iia._:'aVsuitA'!nf'*"dedaration and obmn I decree
his."-fathgr to have died on the grstmd that
s.'..he'_T.<ibai:d and was not heard and seen on and
o1.ns%i.s;a,939, he mm 0.5. Ne.919/'98 in the City cm
Court" Banaaiom which was decrew on 31.08.1999
V'_AAv:th_'ét'if:sin, it was ciaiared that the wtionefs father is
' to be dead and consequentiy, me pedtionq /
plainmf is entitled to reprwent the praurvd death of his
/I .
the petitioner and provide him an appropriate ernpioynttarxt
on compassionate grounds in accordance
soon as vacancy arises In the Universflzy. ‘me order
by the learned Single Judge w;s§” it
respondent In WA. No.224/03 it &§9_as~
foIiows:-
on conslderationflée ciarjfyfthat tirade
Is only rapondmt
afresh: Yaw. Unda the
circo’n:sta:nce§§; ‘*no»,interjferé’en’ce Is called for.
Tire apoevai’ii;-acco’rdti:n§iy’ dismissed.
5. it vtfiaereaftert’ respondent has issued an
endorsement .Vd’cte1dV”e7;i38:03 In which, it was stated that,
is on the ground that his father is not
heaerdiiforé 7 years, is presumed to be dead, flue
_ petitione_:”ca§1not be considered as a dependant of his
4″=_’i’ati1Vier oecause, the presumption of aath of his father and
.._’the’»–d.écree obtained by the petitioner is oniy a fiction in
.!a*}r and that, if It was the Intention to m ke provision for
K
K ,
the deoendants of pmsons who are not
than 7 vars, the some wouid have =expr’ess£-y'”:
specified in the Rules stating that the depeeeerks Vo–f[:even” ».
such persons are entitied to be co-nsiéeredé for e.ppoi_ot;rn-anti”-V’
on compassionate grounds. to*thVe:.r$.p.onoent,
the petitioner’s case does”:not.’_’fei§i’the and the
appointment cannot belighien course and
that he is not e’ntitieo matter of right.
Chaiienging this writ petition has
6. ffhe has flied statement of
‘ objecitions contesting theivttvrit petition. I have heard the
V. “iearhe¢i éioeneei forétheiparties and perused the records.
A siready noticed, the first endorsmient of the
.”‘»-’44.__V’respon&eV_nt issued to the petitioner stated that the
:”petiti.oher should produce death certificate of his father
. Sriikamaiah to consider his case for appointment on
» fcompassionate grounds. In the circumstances, as it was
\
/’ .
10
afresh, within the stipulated period. The
issued the endorsement ciaimina to be of
the order dated 10.04.2094 passed in:t%ie.h.jiio.2ai15fo’1%,tif
wherein, it took the stand that,.’_the ‘ciaim fortVa5’soofiotrn1:ont
on compassionate grounds of
a deceased Govommetitwisaniahtfiyi ah_dflthat ootitionor
cannot ciaim to ho a crnowyeo
who is missing’.”‘jii§o set aside by
this Court iii dated 02.12.2002
and a toéuthévivrwpondant to consider
his casoahd oroig_ido§aan1~V,abioi*opriate empioyment as soon
as vae:ancy4″‘arises.’vin A’i:ho”.University. i-iowever, the sold
aiitra9;dééi’i’was ci.arifii-9.¥dV””i’h”W.A. no.224/o3 we order dam
Vavfiftor the said rounds of litigation and the
possodiilby this Court, the impugned endorsement
“=-»_’__”-».heroin” dated 07.08.2003 has been issued, stating that,
of petitioner’s father is ooiy a flction in law, the
‘ ,..rj4¢’:V”_»»p-iétitioner is not a dependant and hence, mot entitled for
appointment on compassionate grounds. The case wouid
reveal that, the respondent has changw its stand time and
\
/,2
11
again. Had the respondent taken the stand _
taken now, in the beginning Itself, the mattereieu:id:::heyevp:” «.
been examined and an appropriate decisfiori,.ren’d#edi._’__Vh§.§i E
this Court. Whereas, the stand teken””the u
the endorsements dated was
not accepted and consider the
matter. In my view, the ‘o;E,_the case of the
petitioner been in the true
spirit of passed in W.P.
No.241e/our there iheiimr dated 02.12.2002
passed WiP.’ against which, the writ
Appeei –viio.2§4Zii3’we:as- and was dismissed with the
‘.”‘ci3.?*fitafl5’h.”‘In Arrifivopihion, the reependent has not
of the petitioner in the iight of the
afoiresaid The respondent which is a statutory
‘body, oueht to have examined the matter keeping in view,
:.”th’e..s§iirit of the orders passed by this Court. I express my
deep anguish against the manner in which, a peer person
s like the petitionei; who has iosi: his father, was driver: to
repeated rounds of litigation by the respondent and the
\/,
12
petktioner has been made to incur
undergo suffering. Though I express my
considering the plight of the petltlcyino-rr,::A’ar:.;t”«ln_o{
settied position of iaw by the 1-!on’blto7′-Stjprarna’.t:oAurt;
if there Is a long passage of the
time the cialrn for appoi}ntmen’£'”§§e,»Vt.:r;€?@’§’ssIonate’V’around:
made requires consIderatton_V atf the
family has ‘Snot entitted for
appointment Vdtdrounds, I am leoaily
unabiezvvtomorant_tha7’ffe!i§f» to the petitioner.
.3. in [the of uc OF morn Vs. ASHA
‘*–.RAt;%E:’HiH.;ANi)RA AMEEKAR reported in (1994) 2 sec 713,
nit’ that;_1..hardshlp of the candidate does not entitia
hditnfidto ciaihrn ‘appointment donors the statutory provision.
In th”eJ__Ar:i~ase of UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL Vs. STATE or
V”t:V’_AAH.l:§iu?§’ANA reported In (1994) 4 sec 133, it has been
. ofibserved that, the compassionate appointment cannot N
granted after a iapse of a reasonable time. In the case of
DEFENCE METAL RESEARCH LABORATORY vs. (5. MURARI
tk/O’
13
reported in (2003) 9 sec 247, it has been had tnatfird u
writ pet-ttidner and his ramny had dam:
compassionate appointment for 1!37yéars,
warrant in such circumstances for dd§rectIr:§r’.A’the~.
petitioner’s appointment on cortigdasslonato’V~.grod%éd§[ 3 In
the case of STATE or 3A§flMt$t'”}fi§fitfnD; ‘lu(A$HM’iR”Vs”.vE SAJAD
AHMED MIR reported tndug tzood it was had
that, from the fdatgof Lo-f the date on
which the for appointment on
comPasfsIo’r1dt.4§Viovro’ii:rids:;’to’-‘ho rd.-iovant factor to consider
the raddd ddddrzyddrdavea In spite of death of the
empioyee.
ramp. no.3oo24/oa VI-de order dated
that, in the matter of consideration
of “the..__” ‘at§:§*pA|ication I claim for appointment on
:_.’com_pa.$s%onate grounds, considering the fact that naady 18
y_Ve’a-2′”..A”Ahad elapsed, the claim as not tenable.
‘M
14
9. Since the paitioners father was last seeh.r:’eh6~
heard only on 01.06.1989 and the family of
has survived the crisis on now and :=§incettnere:i’s’ ‘a
more than 19 years as of novv,-..__the ‘befits-onerV:”Vca;en_ot jtaeh
extended the reiief, even after the..uehttor’s;ement
dated 87.08.03 — .;tiz.gfirespondertt. The
Court cannot Iose_s1ghtvof..t:he i,?e§i*cun&ancee,
especiaily the ‘_:fa;:;i:or{_i’:é; rnetterwjhof the present
nature. Heneg, prayed for to the
petitlonerg ‘
In thereeuitkiolvfiees~.the:foIIowlng:
* 4′ ehefazeemsgaongr’etc: entitled to the relief, considering
factor I circumstanca. Considering
thetfeot th.=$tr;v’r§n.:;account of the rweated changing stand of
respotedent, the petitioner was made to repeatedly
epproéeh this Court, even though the petitioner is not
V’ granted the main rend’ prayed for In the wrtt
ijpetition, I dmrn It proper to award cost of Rs.20,000/- In
%
/
15
his favour, which shall be paid to the petit!qg3’ar«’.A’§;§i.j: _
respendent within a period of two months
Writ petition stands disposedlaf, }§ccér6in§¥fi’;v
_[ Judge