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. 107434 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

1. GANGAMMA W/O. LATE SIDDAPPA CHALAGIRI AGE: 70 YEARS, R/O. ALAMPUR PETE, TQ: ILAKAL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587125.

2. GURUDEVI D/O. SIDDAPPA CHALAGERI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. ALAMPUR PETE, TQ: ILAKAL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587125.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C R HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE MAANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, GIRIJA A.

TRANSPORT HOUSE, BYAHATTI CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, Digitally signed by GIRIJA SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.

A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.08 11:12:49 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER +0530 W.K.R.T.C. HAVERI DIVISIONAL, HAVERI-581110.

3. THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY SUPERINTENDENT W.K.R.T.C., HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASHANT HOSMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI. ROHIT S.PATIL AND SRI. KAMALAKAR M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO.VAKARASA/HAVI/ SIBBANDI/SI6/837/2023-24, DATED 13.07.2024, ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT, AS PER ANNEXURE-A; WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 15.09.2023 AND 10.06.2024, AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND H; WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER NO.2 FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND BY RELAXING THE UPPER AGE AND ETC.

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

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

1. The petitioner has approached this Court calling in question the endorsement dated 13.07.2024 issued by the second respondent (Annexure-A), whereby the application/representation submitted by petitioner No.2 seeking appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that she had crossed the upper age limit of 38 years and, therefore, was held to be ineligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that; 3.1. Petitioner No.2 is the sister of the deceased employee, who died in harness and was employed with the second respondent -

Corporation.

3.2. Petitioner No.1, being the mother of the deceased employee, submitted a representation dated 15.09.2023 seeking appointment of her daughter (petitioner No.2) on compassionate ground and, by the said representation, gave her consent. The said request was made strictly in accordance with the circular dated 31.01.2022 issued by the respondent - Corporation.

3.3. Further, that the respondent - Corporation has issued the endorsement, without considering the settled proposition of law that a claim for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected merely on the ground of age, particularly when the dependency and indigent circumstances are not in dispute.

3.4. That the deceased employee was admittedly unmarried and the entire family was dependent upon his income.

3.5. Further, petitioner No.2 being otherwise eligible in all respects for appointment on compassionate grounds, is entitled for appointment and that the rejection of her claim by the respondent -

Corporation is arbitrary and contrary to law.

3.6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Saroja v. Managing Director and Others1 (Saroja).

Writ Petition No.106296 of 2025, dated 14.10.2025

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation submits that the applicable rules governing compassionate appointment prescribe an upper age limit of 38 years and petitioner No.2 being aged about 42 years and 9 months as on the date of consideration, was theref