Case: The Director of Treasuries in Karnataka &amp; Anr Vs. V. Somyashree

(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the States policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy; (v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. 8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that as such the High Court has gone beyond Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1996 by directing the appellants to consider the application of the respondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground as divorced daughter. Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1996 read as under: 2. Definitions:- (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:- (a) Dependent of a deceased Government servant means- (i) in the case of deceased male Government servant, his widow, son, (unmarried daughter and widowed daughter) who were dependent upon him; and were living with him; and (ii) in the case of a deceased female Government servant, her widower, son, (unmarried daughter and widowed daughter) who were dependent upon her and were living with her; (iii) family in relation to a deceased Government servant means his or her spouse and their son, (unmarried daughter and widowed daughter) who were living with him. (2) Words and expressions used but not defined shall have the same meaning assigned to them in the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. 6. The eligibility on the death of a female employee is in terms of Rule 3(2)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, which reads as follows: Rule 3(2)(ii):- (ii) in the case of the deceased female Government servant; (a) a son; (b) an unmarried daughter, if the son is not eligible or for any valid reason he is not willing to accept the appointment; (c) the widower, if the son and daughter are not eligible or for any valid reason they are not willing to accept the appointment. (d) a widowed daughter, if the widower, son and unmarried daughter are not eligible or for any valid reason they are not willing to accept the appointment. 3. xxx 4 xxx 8.1 From the aforesaid rules it can be seen that only unmarried daughter and widowed daughter who were dependent upon the deceased female Government servant at the time of her death and living with her can be said to be dependent of a deceased Government servant and that an unmarried daughter and widowed daughter only can be said to be eligible for appointment on compassionate ground in the case of death of the female Government servant. Rule 2 and Rule 3 reproduced hereinabove do not include divorced daughter as eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and even as dependent. As observed hereinabove and even as held by this Court in the case of N.C. Santhosh (Supra), the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis of consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. The word divorced daughter has been added subsequently by Amendment, 2021. Therefore, at the relevant time when the deceased employee died and when the original writ petitioner – respondent herein made an application for appointment on compassionate ground the divorced daughter were not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and the divorced daughter was not within the definition of dependent. 8.2 Apart from the above one additional aspect needs to be noticed, which the High Court has failed to consider. It is to be noted that the deceased employee died on 25.03.2012. The respondent herein – original writ petitioner at that time was a married daughter. Her marriage was subsisting on the date of the death of the deceased i.e. on 25.03.2012. Immediately on the death of the deceased employee, the respondent initiated the divorced proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 12.09.2012 for decree of divorce by mutual consent. By Judgment dated 20.03.2013, the Learned Principal Civil Judge, Mandya granted the decree of divorce by mutual consent. That immediately on the very next day i.e. on 21.03.2013, the respondent herein on the basis of the decree of divorce by mutual consent applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The aforesaid chronology of dates and events would suggest that only for the purpose of getting appointment on compassionate ground the decree of divorce by mutual consent has been obtained. Otherwise, as a married daughter she was not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise also the High Court ought not to have directed the appellants to consider the application of the respondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground as divorced daughter. This is one additional ground to reject the application of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. 8.3 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that at the time when the deceased employee died on 25.03.2012 the marriage between the respondent and her husband was subsisting. Therefore, at the time when the deceased employee died she was a married daughter and therefore, also cannot be said to be dependent as defined under Rule 2 of the Rules 1996. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the divorced daughter may fall in the same class of unmarried daughter and widowed daughter in that case also the date on which the deceased employee died she – respondent herein was not the divorced daughter as she obtained the divorce by mutual consent subsequent to the death of the deceased employee. Therefore, also the respondent shall not be eligible for the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her mother and deceased employee.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]7. While considering the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties a recent decision of this Court in the case of N.C. Santhosh (Supra) on the appointment on compassionate ground is required to be referred to. After considering catena of decisions of this Court on appointment on compassionate grounds it is observed and held that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. It is further observed that the dependent of the deceased Government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and they must fulfill the norms laid down by the States policy. It is further observed and held that the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim of compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. It is further observed he/she is, however, entitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable on the day of death of the Government employee. The law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision on grant of appointment on compassionate ground can be summarized as under:(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the States policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that as such the High Court has gone beyond Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1996 by directing the appellants to consider the application of the respondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground as divorced daughter.8.1 From the aforesaid rules it can be seen that only unmarried daughter and widowed daughter who were dependent upon the deceased female Government servant at the time of her death and living with her can be said to be dependent of a deceased Government servant and that an unmarried daughter and widowed daughter only can be said to be eligible for appointment on compassionate ground in the case of death of the female Government servant. Rule 2 and Rule 3 reproduced hereinabove do not include divorced daughter as eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and even as dependent. As observed hereinabove and even as held by this Court in the case of N.C. Santhosh (Supra), the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis of consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. The word divorced daughter has been added subsequently by Amendment, 2021. Therefore, at the relevant time when the deceased employee died and when the original writ petitioner – respondent herein made an application for appointment on compassionate ground the divorced daughter were not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and the divorced daughter was not within the definition of dependent.8.2 Apart from the above one additional aspect needs to be noticed, which the High Court has failed to consider. It is to be noted that the deceased employee died on 25.03.2012. The respondent herein – original writ petitioner at that time was a married daughter. Her marriage was subsisting on the date of the death of the deceased i.e. on 25.03.2012. Immediately on the death of the deceased employee, the respondent initiated the divorced proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 12.09.2012 for decree of divorce by mutual consent. By Judgment dated 20.03.2013, the Learned Principal Civil Judge, Mandya granted the decree of divorce by mutual consent. That immediately on the very next day i.e. on 21.03.2013, the respondent herein on the basis of the decree of divorce by mutual consent applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The aforesaid chronology of dates and events would suggest that only for the purpose of getting appointment on compassionate ground the decree of divorce by mutual consent has been obtained. Otherwise, as a married daughter she was not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise also the High Court ought not to have directed the appellants to consider the application of the respondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground as divorced daughter. This is one additional ground to reject the application of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground.8.3 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that at the time when the deceased employee died on 25.03.2012 the marriage between the respondent and her husband was subsisting. Therefore, at the time when the deceased employee died she was a married daughter and therefore, also cannot be said to be dependent as defined under Rule 2 of the Rules 1996. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the divorced daughter may fall in the same class of unmarried daughter and widowed daughter in that case also the date on which the deceased employee died she – respondent herein was not the divorced daughter as she obtained the divorce by mutual consent subsequent to the death of the deceased employee. Therefore, also the respondent shall not be eligible for the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her mother and deceased employee.