IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
cmcun BENCH AT DHARWAD j
DATED THIS THE 13?" my of FEBRUA£§Y_..2dE« _ T V %
BEFORE = i «
HONBLE MRJUSTICE MO}§;§§?x}V1S#;lA$}fiTAi¥;3.5€§G*UD§AR
wan P§[_rrIN ;*s--R§ss)
Between :
Vishwa;*adh3%a.j5» _ ' .4 .
S/0 Shiviayya ' '
Age 19 years, VOCQ
R] 0 'Vij ayalakshmi .Na2ganjm*math
Near ixukshmfiingana '1-'ample
~ . Hir¢_bi~ma --'- Lakshmgfshwar
Téalgk, Gaciag District. ..i~"'et:itio:c1er
nin¢shk%LM; Kuikarni, Adv.,)
' ' --- ..'IThe Director
State Wear Housing
"'._(30i'poration, Head Office
79/3, Prime ROSE Read
"Barlgalore-»56{) 025.
9' '4 x 2. The Aéministrator
Karnataka State Wear Housing
-2-
Corporation, Head Office
9/3, Prime Rose Road
Bangalorefiéi) O25. ..Resp0nd.¢n_tsf,.._
(By Sn' K. Hariyanna, Adv., absent)
'o"'¢""' _;
This Writ Petition is filed undef-Ariiéiés
Constimtion of India praying ciuaély th é' *
Annt:xurc~P datxzd 224-2006 pa$'Saf:'i"by the 2c(ii:};"id fiéspondent.
This Writ Pctitiau' f{)1'»_j(.'5i¥i. CrS this day, the
Court made the following 2 'V
13...
.V behalf of respondent No.1 is
.-“‘.z;;¥:;se1j:e:t;7:. S1’i-….F.).i11es}:1 M. Kulkami, iearncd counsel
of the petitioner Elfld perused the material
onfftcoidg A ” .
j f2…v.V_5A§”;11c: father of the peétioner was an employee; of
ji’c;s13onf;fEcnt–Kax11ataka Stats Wear Housing Coxporation. He
. holding the post of Wear House Manager Grade-
., iI/Technicai Assistant, He sawed the :respondent–Corporation
from 18. 10. 1984 ti}! his death i..e., on 7.5.1998. The mother of
..3.
the petitioner i.e., the Wife of the deceased subntitted a
representation to the 1″ respondent on 12.8.I99?$~i,’e.;__:eiitjjin
one year fiwom the date of death of the deceaset__i»”iE’f’?g€}1ti53f.’b”g’lu¥1’§
respo:t1dent~Corporatio1:1 to appciifit ‘ the okra
compassionate grounds after he the figgeiity n~
petitioner was only 1 1 years old RespoudoeIatV«Viflo;ViV
an endorsement dated E”v>,%”7..v.-1()«&.?;’*2J”:”éc§_:’:~’;1t’aVV1″1’tiv.z.1’g thaé1t’the”v’1equest of
the petitioner would gppoizatment on
compassionate groends “attaining the age
ofmajority. t
3. V’T1;e”pefifiofie:=.e’tté§11efi majority on 16.7.2005. Thus,
he made aifipljeatixén : appoinment on compassionate
V’ on By then, he had completed H year PUC
..o_:I{.owever, respondent No.2 has rejected the
apflieetiotl . by the petitioner vide Am1ext1re~’P’ dated
the grotmd that amended Rule 5 of the
Civil Services (Appointment: on Compassionate
__’_”‘:iE’rre;u::ds) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for
V V u”.s1’j1oz’t;), prohibits the appointment of the petitioner.
x»*’
– 4 _
4. The impugned endorsement vidc A3:u}.exuro–‘P cannot
be sustained, inasmuch as, the Division Bench of this in
Writ: Petition No. 19′?S8 10’? (S) has mied that the
5 of the Ruics is prospective in nature and éioos not
retrospective operation. it is not in ciiiépiits ftigat iii:
petitioner is squarely governed by of “.>’V0V§.d-‘V
Rules that is 19952; Rules. flu. pz.’o:r.§.cj1:£§sVV«i.1fi’é§if’Viii ca…”
if a minor seeking app-oi;1tmc_J’t’ ‘oompaosionaié grounds
should submit the applicofiofi from the date of
attaining n1ajoriVty_. ‘ As Vt’11e application by
the p€ti:;i’Ij.O]].;S1J’.SVv”Of 1996 were not amcndeei.
Rule 5 of :2u1es_ is%o’a..«:§§e_;i;i§d with effect from 23.11.2000.
Si31o§_§tfie uamon£5io:1V:I?uIe: 5 is prospective nature, the same
applicable to the petitioner. In View of the
ASamcT:é,__ endorsement is liable to be quashed.
V VV _ Accoieiing1y,~t§’3c foilowing order is made :
AA impugned endorsement vidc ArmexuIe–“P’ dated
passed by rospondcnt No.2 -~ Corporation, stands
VT quétsheci. Respondent No.2 is directed to consirier the
\/’