Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, G. BASAVARAJA, JJ.
Girish S/o. Vinayak Kmuttatti - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka, Department of Personal Administrative Reforms, Rep. by under Secretary to Government & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 100362 of 2022 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 04-11-2022
For the Appellant : Sri. Shravan Madhav K.P., Smt. Dhanya K.S.
For the Respondent: Sri. Praveen Uppar, HCGP.
Point of Law : Application made by the adopted son for compassionate appointment is bonafide and is required to be considered in the background of the difficulties faced by the family. [Para 15]
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 - Rule 3 (3) - Appointment matter - Working as Class-IV employee - Road traffic accident - Compassionate appointment - It is case of appellant that petitioner is adopted son of one, who was working as Class-IV employee (dalayat) in office of Assistant Public Prosecutor, JMFC - Appellant being adopted by way of an adoption deed, adoption was made on account of natural born son of said having expired in a road traffic accident - Adoptive father expired on , appellant had submitted a representation on seeking for compassionate appointment - Said representation was rejected by respondent No.2 vide endorsement dated and by respondent No.4 on ground that appellant was a adopted son and Rules do not provide for consideration of adopted son for compassionate appointment - It is in that background that Writ Petition was filed - Whether an adopted son would have to be treated equally to that of a natural son while considering an application for compassionate appointment.
Finding of Court : Court are therefore of considered opinion that application made by adopted son for compassionate appointment is bonafide and is required to be considered in the background of difficulties faced by the family - Distinction made between adopted son and a natural son by respondent Nos.2 and 4 either on basis of existing Rules in our considered opinion would not have any impact or role to play in matter, a son is a son or a daughter is a daughter, adopted or otherwise, if such a distinction is accepted then there would be no purpose served by adoption - Be that as it may, apparently taking into account that same would violate Article 14 of constitution, said Rules have been amended so as to do away artificial distinction - Contention of Sri. Praveen Uppar, learned HCGP that application has to be considered on basis of Rules applicable on the date on which application was made is liable to be rejected since artificial distinction between adopted son and a natural son was the basis for a such endorsement being issued. [Para 15 and 16]
Result : Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Sri. Praveen Uppar, learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. The appellant is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs :
“(1) Call for the records and set-aside the impugned order dated 24.06.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.107136/2018 (S-RES) passed by learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court.
(2) Strike down Rule 3(3) of Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 Notification No.DPAR 100 SCA 95 dated 12/09/1996 issued by respondent No.1.
(3) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate with or direction directing the respondent No.1 to 3 to issue appointment order on compassionate ground.
(4) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the endorsement dated 07/08/2018 issued by respondent No.2 ( Annexure-F of the writ petition) and quash the endorsement dated 16/08/2018 issued by respondent No.4 ( Annexure-G of the writ petition).
(5) Grant of such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances or the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. Writ Petition in W.P.No.107136/2018 had been filed seeking for the following reliefs :
“To strike down sub Rule (3) of Rule 3 of Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 Notification to DPAR 100 SCA 95 dated 12.09.1996 issued by the respondent No.1 as per Annexure-H.”
4. It is the case of the appellant that the petitioner is the adopted son of one Vinayak M Muttatti, who was working as Class-IV employee (dalayat) in the office of Assistant Public Prosecutor, JMFC, Banahatti. The appellant being adopted on 08.12.2011 by way of an adoption deed, the adoption was made on account of natural born son of the said Vinayak M. Muttatti having expired in a road traffic accident on 08.11.2010.
5. The adoptive father Vinayak M. Muttatti expired on 27.03.2018, the appellant had submitted a representation on 07.06.2018 seeking for compassionate appointment. The said representation was rejected by respondent No.2 vide endorsement dated 07.08.2018 and by respondent No.4 on 16.08.2018 on the ground that the appellant was a adopted son and the Rules do not provide for consideration of adopted son for compassionate appointment. It is in that background that the Writ Petition was filed.
6. The learned Single Judge by way of his order dated 24.06.2021 dismissed the said challenge on the ground that the Rules do not provide for an adopted son to be considered for compassionate appointment. It is in that background that the appellant is before this Court challenging the order of the learned Single Judge.
7. Another Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.211068/2020 has considered all the issues and by judgement dated 23.02.2022 by taking into consideration the amendment to the Rules made on 09.04.2021, has come to the conclusion that there cannot be a distinction made between a natural born son and an adopted son.
8. That decision Sri. Shravan Madhav, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that the amendment made on 09.04.2021 was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge when the order dated 24.06.2021 was passed. But however, he presses the said amendment into service by relying upon the judgement of another learned Single Judge in W.P.No.211068/2020 and submits that the Writ Appeal ought to be allowed.
9. Sri. Praveen Uppar, learned HCGP who has entered appearance for the respondents submits that consideration of the application is required to be made on the basis of the applicable Rules as on the date of the application and the subsequent amendment would not have any impact and the benefit given by way of amendment cannot be extended to the petitioner. On these grounds he submits that the judgement of the learned Single Judge is proper and correct and does not require any interference from our end.
10. Heard Sri. Shravan Madhav, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Praveen Uppar, learned HCGP fo
