IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.27454 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI KIRAN P S/O.LATE SRI.PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS NO.386, 25TH "B" MAIN II SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560102 … PETITIONER (BY SRI H.T.VASANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUAMRAPARK WEST BENGALURU-560020 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD: 03.05.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE – L ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the son of late Prakash who died in harness on 18.03.2014, is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the endorsement dated 3.5.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-L whereby, his claim dated 19.7.2014 for compassionate appointment is negatived by the respondent. After service of notice, the respondent having entered appearance through it’s Senior Panel Counsel opposes the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, the impugned endorsement cannot be faltered for the following reasons:
(a) in his earlier writ petition in W.P.No.38608/2017, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26.04.2018 having set aside a similar endorsement, had remanded the matter for consideration afresh, is true; accordingly, the respondent having considered the claim de novo, has again rejected the claim; although the reasoning in the impugned endorsement is not that happily articulated, it remains to be an admitted fact that the family of the deceased which includes the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.33,63,465/- as the terminal benefits of service as mentioned in para 5 of Statement of Objections; thus, whatever hardship the family was put to, withers away in thin air because of the huge amount received by it; thus, the sine qua non for staking claim for compassionate appointment namely the hardship and distress of the family of the decased employee is militantly lacking;
(b) the Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 has held as under:
“The rule of appointments to public service is that they should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through which one can get into a public employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one such exception relief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependants in a vacancy. The object is to give succour to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole breadwinner. This Court has observed time and again that the object of providing such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment”.
This is reiterated by the Apex Court in it’s latest decision in State of Himachala Pradesh Vs. Shashikumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653. The above observations in all fours apply to the case of the petitioner as rightly contended by Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent-BDA.
In the above circumstances, Writ Petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
KTY Sd/- JUDGE