IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 101757 OF 2021 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

B. RAKESH S/O. GURUNATH, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: 620/2, 5^TH CROSS, K.B. EXTN., DAVANAGERE, DIST: DAVANAGERE.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: BALLARI.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C. SHARANABASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLEs 226 AND Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO ISSUE A PATTIHAL Location: Hi gh Court of Karnataka, WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE Dharwad Bench, Dharwad IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 25.09.2020 BEARING NO. (PÀ.¸ÀA:SUM.PUSA.HaHalli:Sibbandi:CR-25:2020-21/128 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

The petitioner is before this court seeking the following prayer:

1. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned endorsement dated 25.09.2020 bearing No. (PÀ.¸ÀA:Sum.PuSa.HaHalli:Sibbandi:CR-

25:2020-21/128 vide Annexure-F.

2. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/direction to respondent No.1 to 3 to consider the representation date 17.03.2020 vide Annexure-D of the petitioner in view of the endorsement dated 10.01.2017 vide Annexure-D issued by respondent No.3.

3. Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit under the circumstances of the case.

2. The petitioner is said to be the adopted child of one Gurunath, an employee who was working as a loader in respondent Town Municipal Council, Harapanahalli. He dies in harness on 12.11.2019. Before the death of the said employee, registered Adoption deed is said to have been executed adopting the petitioner as his son. The petitioner, after the death of the father, submits an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The same comes to be rejected on the score that there are no documents produced by the petitioner with regard to the adoption prior to the date of the death of the employee. Even otherwise the endorsement is that he is not eligible under the relevant rules.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterated the ground set out in the petition to contend that the adoption takes place long before the death and all the documents were submitted to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner. The same has not merited any consideration. The learned counsel would seek to place reliance upon the decision of Division Bench of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.100362/2022.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently refute the submissions contending that the documents of adoption that was handed over to the respondent was containing the name of the biological father and not the name of Gurunath, who was the employee who died in harness. The learned counsel for the petitioner would now join the issue in contending that all the necessary documents would be handed over to the respondent and the case of the petitioner be

3. Writ Petition in W.P.No.107136/2018 had been filed seeking for the following reliefs:

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 subseq