Point of Law: If giving of an application within one year is held to be mandatory and binding on the applicant in terms of Rule 5, so would be sub -Rule (2) of Rule 6 upon the State and its instrumentalities.

ORDER :

Petitioners in this writ petition call in question the endorsement dated 23-12-2020, bearing No.G1/164168/Anukampa/144/2017-18, declining to grant an appointment on compassionate grounds to the 1st petitioner and have sought for consequential direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the 1st petitioner for an appointment on compassionate grounds qua his qualification.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The father of the 1st petitioner and husband of the 2nd petitioner -Sri K. Ningaraju was working as Head Master in the Institute of Education High School, Kuvempu Nagar at Mysore and on 11-09-2015, he died in harness. On the death of the sole bread winner of the family, the petitioners sought an appointment on compassionate grounds to the 1st petitioner. This having not been considered favourably, the petitioners approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.39921 and 42771 of 2018. This Court by its order dated 12-12-2018, quashed the endorsement therein, which denied an appointment to the 1st petitioner and directed consideration of representations made on 28-10-2016 and 20-08-2018 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks.

3. It is pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the respondents again turned down the claim of the petitioners for an appointment on compassionate grounds to the 1st petitioner by the impugned endorsement dated 23.12.2020 on the ground that the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and terms and conditions of service of employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) (Amendment) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short) have come into force with effect from 26-09-2017, in terms of which number of posts of Second Division Assistants to be appointed has been modified and for minimum three sections of VIII, IX and X standards irrespective of total number of sections in a school, it was restricted to one Second Division Assistant. Contending that the Rules have come into force and the claim of the petitioners cannot be considered in the light of the Rules which declare only one post of Second Division Assistant available for three sections, the case of the 1st petitioner cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is this endorsement that is called in question in the subject writ petition.

4. Heard Smt. Ashwini Obulesh, learned counsel for petitioners and Smt. M.C. Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners would submit that the appointment on compassionate grounds was denied on the basis of a Rule that came about on 26-09-2017 which was long after the death of the bread winner of the family and the application being given by the petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate though has not filed statement of objections, submits that her submissions be treated as the objections of Government and would submit that there is no right to the applicants to seek an appointment on compassionate grounds as it can be only in terms of the policy or the Rules as the case would be. Since there was no vacancy existing in the post of Second Division Assistant in any of the Aided Institutions, the appointment of the 1st petitioner was declined to be considered for the present. It is also submitted that the date of death of the father of the petitioner was on 11.09.2015, 6 years have passed by with the family sustaining without the income of its breadwinner and no appointment on compassionate grounds can be granted at this juncture.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material on record.

8. Consideration of applications f