IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 109494 OF 2025 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SAROJA W/O. MALLIKARJUN MORABAD AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. #412/93, RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR, GADAG-582101.

2. VINAY S/O. MALLIKARJUN MORABAD AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. #412/93, RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR, GADAG-582101.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRISH V.BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MANJANNA E

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DHARWAD BENCH D + a 0 t 5 e 3 : 0 2026.01.09 10:48:50 6^TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ROOM NO. 229, VIKAS SOUDHA, 2^ND FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

3. KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, 6^TH FLOOR, CUNNINGHANM ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

4. THE PRINCIPAL DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL (SC-805), MUDARAGI, DIST: GADAG.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR A DIRECTION OR AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED REPLY ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.REIS/EST/DEB/8/2023 - ADMN (E:68700) DATED 04.09.2024 REJECTED THE CLAIM FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT TO THE PETITIONER NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The petitioners have called in question the endorsement/order issued by the respondent-authorities rejecting the request for compassionate appointment in favour of petitioner No.2, the younger brother of the deceased employee, and seeking a consequential direction to grant compassionate appointment.

Brief facts:

3. The deceased employee, son of petitioner No.1 and elder brother of petitioner No.2, was working as a teacher under the respondent No.4-institution and died while in service. After his demise, petitioner No.1 submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment in favour of petitioner No.2. The said request came to be rejected by the competent authority primarily on the ground that the deceased employee was married and that his wife was alive. Aggrieved by the rejection, the present writ petition is filed.

Contention of the petitioner:

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the rejection of the request for compassionate appointment is arbitrary and contrary to the object of the scheme. Petitioner No.2 is a dependent family member and is otherwise qualified to be considered for appointment. The wife of the deceased employee had given her consent-no objection for appointment of petitioner No.2. The authorities failed to consider the financial hardship of the family and adopted hypothetical approach and hence the impugned rejection warrants interference by this Court.

Contention of the respondents:

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned action and contends that the compassionate appointment is governed strictly by the scheme in force and the deceased employee was married and his wife is alive. There is no material to demonstrate that the marital relationship between the deceased and his wife had ceased or that they were living separately. In the absence of such material, the claim of the younger brother cannot be entertained under the scheme and the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

Reasoning:

6. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioners have made out a case for interference with the rejection of the compassionate appointment