The father of the petitioner, Sri Mari alias Mariappa was working as a Mechanic, Grade II, in the formerly known, the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, which was subsequently divided into different companies and the service of the said person was allotted to the newly established Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Limited. While in service, he died on 19-11-1999 leaving behind him, his wife, 4 sons and 2 daughters. The petitioner is the 4th son of the deceased who at the time of his father's death, was aged about 20 years and had passed PUC and also completed ITI course. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds, considering which, he was informed to furnish the information in respect of the matters relating to the family composition, assets and income of the family of the deceased and other related matters. The petitioner furnished the information and the respondents conducted investigation to find out the status of the family of the petitioner and their Vigilance Officer submitted a report. The respondents issued an endorsement dated 12-4-2002 (Annexure-E), declining to extend appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner on the ground that, two of his elder brothers are in the employment under the State and in such circumstances, there is no provision to provide employment on compassionate ground. According to the petitioner, the said endorsement is irrational, arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and also contrary to the provisions of the Rules governing the appointment on compassionate grounds by the respondents. Annexure-F is the notification dated 17-4-1997 issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 79(c) read with Section 59 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, whereby, the Karnataka Electricity Board (Board' for short) has made the Regulations called, Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Recruitment (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Regulations, 1997 ('Regulations' for short). According to the petitioner, clause (4) of the said Regulations, does not prohibit the Board from appointing a son or daughter of the deceased employee of the Board, if any other sons or daughters of the deceased employee are employed elsewhere and rejection on that ground, is illegal. Petitioner has further stated that, after the receipt of the endorsement dated 12-4-2002, his mother submitted a representation dated 18-2-2003 for reconsideration and since the matter was not reconsidered and an appropriate order was not passed, this writ petition was filed.

2. Notice of the writ petition was ordered to the respondents, who have entered appearance through Counsel.

3. I have heard Sri M. Subramanya Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aravind Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

4. Sri M. Subramanya Bhat, contended that, the endorsement issued by the respondents to the petitioner declining to grant appointment on compassionate grounds, despite the recommendation/report of the Vigilance Officer, solely on the ground that, the two elder brothers of the petitioner are in Government employment and therefore Regulations do not provide for an appointment on compassionate grounds, is unjustified, arbitrary and illegal. He contended that, a perusal of the Regulations makes it manifestly clear that, there is no bar or restriction as such placed in the Regulations to deny appointment on the grounds stated in the impugned endorsement and hence, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. He contended that, providing an appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent of the deceased employee, is to give some sort of security to the family of the deceased, to overcome the hardship caused to the family and the respondents by the impugned action, have defeated the very purpose and the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds. He contended that, the petitioner