IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 106229 OF 2024 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

K. ABDUL S/O K. SHAFIULLA SATTAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: WARD NO.4, AJAD NAGAR, NEAR AIRTEL TOWER KUDLIGI, TQ/DIST: BALLARI- 583 101.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELE, TL AND SS DIVISION, KPTCL, MUNIRABAD- 583 233, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE), O. AND M. DIVISION, GESCOM, MANJANNA E BALLARI, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI- 583101.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 Date: 2026.02.27

17:05:38 +0530 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED. 08-07-2024 BEARING NO. aa(vi)/ uleni/ lea/ salea/ hisa(saa)/2024-25/1725 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AT VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION AT VIDE ANNEXURE-D. DATED 11-05-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN FORM NO.1 APPOINT THE PETITIONER IN ANY SUITABLE POST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the endorsement dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure-H), issued by the respondent- Corporation, whereby, the claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.

Brief facts:

2. The petitioner claims to be the adopted son of late K. Shafihulla, who was working as a station attendant under respondent-Corporation and died in harness on 05.12.2019. The petitioner relies upon the registered deed of adoption dated 09.02.2007 executed during the life time of the deceased employee. After the death of the employee, the petitioner submitted an application dated 11.05.2020 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The claim was initially rejected by endorsement dated 24.07.2020. The petitioner challenged the same in W.P.101509/2021. By order dated 12.07.2023, this Court quashed the endorsement and directed reconsideration of the petitioner's claim in accordance with law.

3. The respondent-Corporation after reconsideration, issued the present impugned endorsement dated 08.07.2024, again rejecting the claim on the following grounds:

i. Adoption is not recognized under Mohammedean personal law.

ii. The petitioner has not been adopted in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act, 2008 procedure (‘JJ Act’ for short).

iii. Service and educational records reflect a different parental name.

iv. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as an adopted son.

Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the legally adopted son under a registered adoption deed. The adoption deed has not been set aside by any competent Civil Court and the respondent-Corporation has no jurisdiction to question the validity of the adoption. It is submitted that in the earlier writ petition having resulted in a direction to reconsider, the authority was bound to consider the claim in accordance with law and that the core issue under compassionate appointment is dependency, and not personal law validity. He relies upon the following decisions:

i. Shanu Kumar Vs. The Nagar Ayukt Municpal (Commissioner) Nagar Nigam Lko. And Others, W.A.No.493/2024 D.D 24.11.2025 (Shanu Kumar), to contend that an administrative authority cannot invalidate a registered adoption deed.

ii. K. Heerajohn Vs. The District Registrar Madurai District, Madurai, W.P.(MD) No.27615/2025 D.D 17.10.2025 (K. Heerajohn), to contend that the authorities cannot reject adoption solely on religious consideration.

iii. Shaukat Ali Son of Somu Khan Vs. Union of India and Others, Origina