ORDER :

1. “Half the world; and not even half the chance” is the cry of the petitioner in this petition on being denied consideration for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father on the score that she is “a married daughter”.

2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the facts that are germane for consideration of the lis are:

Petitioner is the daughter of late Ashok Adiveppa Madivalar who was working as Secretary in the office of the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APMC’ for short) Kuduchi village, Belgaum District and died in harness.

3. On the death of the sole breadwinner of the family, petitioner, the daughter of the deceased employee, submitted a representation on 08.11.2016 for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. In response to the said application of the petitioner, the respondents directed her to rectify the defects in the application and submit the same in a proper format. In terms of the direction, petitioner submitted her representation on 22.05.2017 along with necessary documents.

4. In reply to the request of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the third respondent Joint Director (Administration), Department of Agriculture Marketing issued an endorsement rejecting the request on the ground that the Rules obtaining does not entitle the petitioner to seek an appointment on compassionate grounds on the score that she is the daughter of the deceased employee who is married. This rejection order dated 31.08.2017 was communicated to the petitioner on 12.09.2017 by the second respondent. It is the aforesaid orders dated 31.08.2017 and 12.09.2017 that are challenged in this writ petition by seeking to quash them by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari.

5. Heard Sri.Manmohan.P.N., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Subramanya, learned Additional Advocate General and Sri.R.Srinivasa Gowda, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Respondent No.2 though served has remained unrepresented.

6. Sri.Manmohan.P.N., learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that the Rule which empowers the Government to reject an application of a married daughter falls foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it is on the face of it discriminatory which seeks to make a division of entitlement on the basis of gender. He would further contend that it is in that light that he has sought for a declaration at the hands of this Court to declare Rule 2(1) (a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the‘ said Rules” for short) as unconstitutional.

7. On the other hand, Sri.Subramanya.R., learned Additional Advocate General would vehemently argue and contend that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but a concession that is shown by the Government for a family which loses its breadwinner to tide over the immediate crisis that engulfs such families. It is with this object the Rules are framed and any request for appointment on compassionate grounds will have to be strictly construed in terms of the Rules and not dehors the same and would submit the Rule that has stood the test of time cannot be held to be unconstitutional or ultravires the constitution merely because the petitioner is denied a concession and not a right.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. In furtherance of the aforesaid submissions, the point that arises for my consideration is:

“Whether Rule 2(1)(a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 are ultravires the Constitution for it offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India?”

10. OBJECT OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT:

10.1. It is by now a well settled principle that object of compassio