Case: N.C. SANTHOSH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA &amp; ORS

2. The appellants here were the beneficiary of compassionate appointments. But on the discovery that their appointments were made dehors the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 as amended w.e.f. 1.04.1999, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), those appointments came to be cancelled. The amendment to the proviso to Rule 5 stipulated that in case of a minor dependant of the deceased government employee, he/she must apply within one year from the date of death of the government servant and he must have attained the age of eighteen years on the day of making the application. Before amendment, the minor dependant was entitled to apply till one year of attaining majority3. When their service was terminated the aggrieved appointees approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). But the Tribunal found that appellants were ineligible for appointment under the Rules and accordingly dismissed the related applications. The resultant writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, leading to the present appeals8.1 Some additional aspect needs to be noticed to complete the factual details pertaining to the appeal arising out of the SLP(C) No. 34878/2013 filed by Sayeda F. Banao. In this case, on the death of the appellants mother on 24.5.1994, first, a request was made by the appellants father to provide him appointment on compassionate ground which however, was rejected by the authorities on 12.6.1997. Thereafter, the appellant after attaining majority on 12.5.2000 made an application for compassionate appointment on 25.9.2000 and was appointed as a Second Division Assistant on 20.9.2001. She was served with a show cause notice dated 2.6.2005 on the ground that she had not attained the age of 18 years within one year from the date of death of the government servant and accordingly, her service was terminated vide Order dated 15.6.20058.2 Challenging the order of termination, the appellant filed application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 20.10.2005 set aside the termination order holding that the service of the appellant was terminated without holding proper enquiry under Rule 11 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 and directed her reinstatement, reserving liberty to the State in accordance with law8.3 Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the appellant was reinstated in service on 04.01.2006. Thereafter, an enquiry was initiated against her under Rule 11 of the said Rules alleging misconduct and misrepresentation of her age at the time of submission of her application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The appellant was then removed from the service by order dated 28.12.2006 and when her appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 30.08.2007, she again approached the Tribunal. In her OA No.4901/2007, the Tribunal vide its order dated 21.04.2009 found that there was no misconduct on the part of the appellant. Nevertheless the Tribunal affirmed the cancellation of the appointment with the finding that the appointment was made de hors the amended Rule 5 of the KCS (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules and thus, the cancellation of appointment was found to be justified by the Tribunal. The appellants review petition was also dismissed by order dated 03.12.2009. The resultant writ petition filed by the appellant challenging cancellation of her appointment and the order of the Tribunal were dismissed, by the High Court under the impugned judgment dated 14.08.2013.

Court's reasoning:
8.4 Though, certain additional factual details are seen in the appeal relating to Sayeda Farheen Banao, but core issue is no different from the other casesThe validity of the amended Rules is not challenged in any of the present proceedings. Following the amendment the norms clearly suggest that the earlier provision which enabled a minor dependant to apply on attaining majority (may be years after the death of the government servant), has been done away with. The object of the amended provision is to ensure that no application is filed beyond one year of the death of the government employee. The consequence of prohibiting application by a minor beyond one year from the date of death of the parent can only mean that the appellants were undeserving beneficiaries of compassionate appointment as they attained majority well beyond one year of the death of their respective parents11. In all these cases, when the government employee died, the appellants were minor and they had turned 18, well beyond one year of death of the parent. As can be seen from the details in the chart, the dependants attained majority after a gap of 2-6 years from the respective date of death of their parents and then they applied for appointment. By the time, the dependent children turned 18, the amended provisions became operational w.e.f. 01.04.1999. As such their belated application for compassionate appointment should have been rejected at the threshold as being not in conformity with proviso to Rule 5. The appellants applied for compassionate appointment (after attainment of majority), well beyond the stipulated period of one year from the date of death of the parent, and therefore, those applications should not have been entertained being in contravention of Rules13. Insofar as the appellants claim to legitimacy of appointment on the basis of Rule 9(3) of the Rules, a reading of Rule 9(3) suggests that it is a transitory provision granting extension of time for applying for compassionate appointment. But the transitory provision excludes application filed in contravention of Rule 5, as amended in 1999. In other words, applications filed by minor dependants who had not attained majority within one year from the date of death of the government servants will be in contravention of Rule 5. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the cases of the appellants are not covered by the transitory provision of Rule 9(3) introduced by the notification dated 28.5.200214. It is well settled that for all government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as is mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. In Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors.(2008) 15 SCC 560    It was remarked accordingly that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirant.18. The above discussion suggest that the view taken in Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) is to be reconciled with the contrary view of the coordinate bench, in the two earlier judgments. Therefore, notwithstanding the strong reliance placed by the appellants counsel on Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) as also the opinion of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Uday Krishna Naik vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.(Writ Petition No.37931 of 1998) , it can not be said that the appellants claim should be considered under the unamended provisions of the Rules prevailing on the date of death of the Government employee.19. In the most recent judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653    the earlier decisions governing the principles of compassionate appointment were discussed and analysed. Speaking for the bench, Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reiterated that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles in accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. The Dependent of a 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 policy20. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for 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. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee.