IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.688 OF 2018 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES ANANDA RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001.
(BY SMT. SHILPA S GOGI, HCGP) AND:
SMT. T. DEEPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS D/O SRI THULSI RAO-R R/AT NO.267, 3RD CROSS SWARNA SANDRA MANDYA CITY-571 401.
(SRI JAVID HUSSAIN, ADVOCATE) ....PETITIONER ….RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT APPLICATION NO.1150/2006 DATED:27.10.2016 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The respondent in Application No.1150/2006 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short) has come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 27.10.2016 passed therein.
2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
The respondent herein who is the applicant before the Tribunal is the daughter of Smt. Sulochana, who was serving as Group ‘D’ employee in the District Hospital, Mandya. She died in harness on 09.07.2004 leaving behind her husband and two daughters namely, T.Roopa and T.Deepa. One of the daughters of the deceased employee, respondent herein, filed an application with the petitioner seeking employment on compassionate grounds, wherein she would state that she is unmarried daughter of deceased employee and as such, under Rule 2(1)(a) and (b) of Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, she is entitled to be appointed to an appropriate post in the petitioner’s Department. When the said application was pending consideration before the petitioner herein, an anonymous letter was received, wherein it was indicated that the respondent herein, applicant before the Tribunal, was already married as on the date of filing of application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and she had already delivered a child in the year 2003 in the wedlock with one Dhanashekar. When the said complaint was perused, it was noticed that the contents therein were true.
3. It is in this background, the respondent herein was called upon to substantiate her claim regarding her status as unmarried, she would file an affidavit by way of reply which is dated 03.03.2005, wherein she would state that she is unmarried and that she is entitled to get appointment under the relevant rule. The application which was filed by her seeking appointment on compassionate grounds is dated 27.12.2004, wherein it is stated that she was unmarried and the same is reiterated in the affidavit. Thereafter, it is seen that a joint petition is filed by her husband as first petitioner and the respondent herein as second petitioner before the Family Court, Mandya, under Section 13(1)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage which has taken place between Dhanashekar and respondent herein. Incidentally, the order which is passed in the said petition in M.C.No.6/2005 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mandya, does not disclose the date of marriage. Per contra, the birth certificate of her son, which is of the year 2003, would indicate that she has delivered a male child, thereby, indicating that she was married atleast 9 months prior to that date. It is the said marriage which is dissolved in the proceedings before the Lok Adalath on 19.03.2005 i.e., 3 days after the date of filing of the joint petition. All this would clearly indicate that the benevolent provision of the State is abused by the respondent herein in trying to project herself as a spinster/unmarried daughter of deceased employee and consequently, to seek employment in the petitioner Department.
4. The things would not have bothered if it was left at that. In the application which is filed by her before the Tribunal in Application No.1150/2006, she would go to the extent of seeking a direction to the Government to amend the relevant Rule to include married daughters also in the Rule which entitles the dependents of the deceased employee to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. The applicants are at liberty to seek any prayer they want from the Court, but it is the Officers who are adjudicating that application should be aware of their limitations.
5. At this juncture, it is noticed that the Administrative Member of the Tribunal has exceeded his jurisdiction in considering the said prayer and passing an order directing the State to amend the Rule, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The said order is nothing but trying to give seal of approval to an illegality which is already committed. Therefore, we deprecate such practice of Tribunal in passing such orders.
6. With such observation, the order dated 27.10.2016 in Application No.1150/2006 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed. While doing so, this Court felt that it is appropriate to initiate proceedings against the respondent herein for abuse of process of law. However, after considering that her attempt to secure job by staking falsehood is more out of ignorance or by a wrong advice, hence, this Court would give a stern warning to her and would restrain from passing any punitive orders.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE CA