IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16946 OF 2024 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SHIVAKUMAR V S/O E VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.03, 15TH CROSS ROAD ANEPALYA KOLANDAPPA, GARDEN ADUGODI POST BANGALORE-560030.

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. SARASWATHI M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHUT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE Digitally signed by BANGALORE-560002.

MALATHI CHALUVA IYENGAR Location: HIG H 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER COURTOF KARNATAKA BRUHUT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE KORAMANGALA SUG-DIVISION NO.1, 1ST FLOOR, GOVERNMENT HEALTH CENTRE BUILDING, HOSUR ROAD ADGUODI, BANGALORE.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B S SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A MANDAMUS TO CONSIDER THE LETTER DATED: 10.01.2022 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT TO APPOINT HIM ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the endorsement dated 06.01.2024 (vide Annexure-J), issued by the respondent No.2, rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s father, late E.Venkataswamy, was appointed as a Gangman on 11.01.1996 in the respondent Corporation. He died on 03.04.2021 while in service, leaving behind two sons and one daughter. The petitioner is the elder son of the deceased E.Venkataswamy.

3. The petitioner filed an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 10.01.2022 (vide Annexure-C). However, his application was rejected on the ground that, as on the date of filing the application, he was aged about 40 years and 10 months, which is beyond the age limit prescribed for a Group-D post under Category-2A in the Service Rules. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner is before this Hon’ble Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions:

(i) Firstly, even though the age limit prescribed for Category–2A is 38 years, the petitioner was aged about 40 years and 10 months at the time of filing the application. Since the petitioner was dependent upon the income of his deceased father, the respondent Corporation could have granted appointment to the petitioner by relaxing the age limit. In support of this contention, she has relied upon the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.

No. 106296/2025, disposed of on 14.10.2025.

(ii) Secondly, the application was filed on 10.01.2022, whereas the endorsement rejecting the same was issued on 06.01.2024, after a lapse of nearly two years. As per Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, appointment on compassionate grounds shall be made within three months from the date of the application. At the very least, the respondent ought to have issued the endorsement within six months, in which event the other son could have applied for appointment on compassionate grounds.

Hence, she seeks for allowing the writ petition.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that E.Venkataswamy died leaving behind two sons and one daughter. The first son was aged about 37 years and, since he was working elsewhere, he did not file an application. The petitioner was aware that, as on the date of filing the application, he was age-barred by two years. Therefore, no relaxation could be granted for consideration of his application. Accordingly, the competent authority issued the endorsement. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties a