Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 18961
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD, K V ARAVIND, JJ
MAHESHWARI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS – Respondent
WP 203125/2023
SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE, SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GOVT. ADV.
A rule prohibiting married daughters from compassionate appointment is void ab initio if struck down by a court, allowing for equitable consideration regardless of marital status.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 - Writ petition challenging the dismissal of petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate grounds as a married daughter - The KSAT upheld the rejection based on the existing rule; however, the Court found the rule void ab initio due to a prior ruling striking down the word 'unmarried' - The petitioner was entitled to consideration for appointment as the rule was rendered inoperative. (Paras 2, 10, 12)
(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized that once a rule is struck down without a prospective effect, it becomes unenforceable and void, allowing the petitioner to seek appointment on compassionate grounds irrespective of marital status. (Paras 6, 10)
(C) Findings of Court - The KSAT's decision was found unsustainable as it did not consider the implications of the prior judgment which invalidated the rule barring married daughters from appointment. (Paras 11, 12)
(D) Issues - The main issues included the applicability of the prior judgment regarding the rule's validity and the entitlement of married daughters for compassionate appointments. (Paras 3, 10) (E) Ratio Decidendi - The Court reasoned that the endorsement rejecting the application was invalid as the underlying rule was void, and the KSAT failed to apply the correct legal standard. (Paras 11, 12) (F) Result - The writ petition is allowed; the KSAT's order is set aside, and the endorsement is quashed. (Para 12)
1. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi (for short ‘KSAT’) in Application No.20744/2022 whereby the application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and endorsement dated 28.03.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground has been upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case:
- The petitioner’s father, Veerangouda, was working as a Junior Health Assistant at Primary Health Centre, Gillesugur Village, Raichur. He died on 14.02.2019 while he was in service, leaving behind his wife and three daughters. The petitioner, being the third daughter of the deceased Veerangoud, obtained no objection from her mother and other two sisters and applied for her appointment on compassionate ground on 30.12.2019. The respondent No.3 by endorsement dated 06.01.2020 has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that she is a married daughter. The said order dated 06.01.2020 has been challenged by the petitioner before the KSAT in Application No.20349/2020. The KSAT vide order dated 25.01.2021 allowed the application and directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner and appoint her on compassionate ground. Since the said direction was not complied, the petitioner filed a contempt application in CTA No.20108/2021 against the respondents for disobedience of the directions issued by the KSAT.
- During the pendency of the contempt application, the respondent No.2
- filed an affidavit enclosing the endorsement dated 28.03.2022 along with a memo. Once again, by endorsement dated 28.03.2022, the application of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the very same ground that she is a married daughter and she is not entitled for appointment under Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules 1996 (for short ‘Rules 1996’). Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an application before the KSAT in Application No.20744/2022 challenging the endorsement dated 28.03.2022. The KSAT by order dated 13.10.2023 has dismissed the application by upholding the endorsement dated 28.03.2022 issued by the respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Sri.Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner’s application for her appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by respondent No.3
vide endorsement dated 06.01.2020 and the same has been challenged before the KSAT in Application No.20349/2020. During the pendency of the application filed by the petitioner, a writ petition was filed by one Smt.Bhuvaneshwari V Puranik in W.P.No.17788/2018 before the High of Karnataka, Bangalore, challenging the validity of the Rules 1996. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 15.12.2020 and the word ‘unmarried’ in 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 was ordered to be striked down.
The said order passed in W.P.No.17788/2018 was placed before the KSAT by the petitioner. Without considering the same, the KSAT by order dated 13.10.2023 has erroneously dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. He further contended that once the Court strikes down the Rule and unless held prospective, it will only mean that it is inoperative and ineffective and thus unenforceable. Therefore, there is no provision for rejecting the application on the ground that the applicant is a married daughter. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CBI –v- R.R.Kishore reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 . Further, he has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.3340/2020 c/w W.P.No.1002/2021 disposed of on 28.05.2021 w
