Safiya Malik

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for compassionate appointment, holding that the refusal based solely on the absence of a vacancy in the institution where the deceased employee worked was contrary to the statutory provisions. The Court quashed the impugned order issued by the concerned authority and directed the Deputy Director of Pre-University Education to reconsider the application in accordance with the Karnataka Pre-University Education (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 2010. The Court further directed that, if no vacancy is available within the district, the matter must be escalated to the Director to identify a vacancy anywhere in the State for such appointment, with the entire process to be completed within eight weeks.

The petitioner’s father had been employed as a First Grade Assistant in Adarsh Composite Pre-University College, Bevoor, Bagalkot District, an aided institution. He passed away while in service on 18 November 2009. Following his father’s demise, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment to the Chairman of Adarsh Vidya Vardhaka Sangha. This application was forwarded to the Deputy Director of Pre-University Education, who rejected it on the ground that there was no vacancy in the institution where the deceased employee had served. This decision was endorsed by the Joint Director of the Pre-University Education Department.

Also Read: FIR Not Substantive Evidence Of Guilt | Supreme Court Sets Aside Jail Sentence Imposed Without Notice, Restores Fine-Only Conviction

The petitioner contended that under the Karnataka Pre-University Education (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 2010, the Deputy Director is mandated to identify vacancies in any aided private pre-university institution within the district where the deceased employee had worked, and if no such vacancy exists, the Director must identify a vacancy anywhere in the State. It was argued that the rejection based solely on the absence of a vacancy in the specific institution was contrary to these provisions.

The respondents supported the rejection, stating that in the absence of a vacancy in the same institution, the application could not be considered.

The matter was brought before the Court seeking quashing of the impugned endorsement dated 20 September 2024, and a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to consider the application in accordance with the Rules, 2010.

The Court examined the relevant statutory provisions, specifically Clause 1(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Pre-University Education (Academic, Registration, Administration, Grant-in-aid etc.) (Amendment) Rules, 2010, which state: "In case a vacancy is not available in the private aided educational institutions imparting Pre-university Education, where the deceased employee has worked, the eligible dependent of such an employee, who seeks appointment under these rules, may be appointed on compassionate grounds, against a vacancy available in any other aided private educational institution..."

The Rules provide a specific process for identifying vacancies:

(a) The Deputy Director of Pre-University Education concerned shall identify the vacancy available in any other aided private educational institution imparting Pre-University Education within the district where the deceased employee worked and direct such an institution to take necessary action to appoint the dependent concerned to such a vacancy...

(b) In case no vacancy is available within the district where the deceased employee worked, the Deputy Director of Pre-University Education shall forward the records to the Director, Pre-University Education who shall identify the vacancy available in any other aided private educational institution imparting Pre-University Education anywhere in the State and direct such an institution to take necessary action to appoint the dependent concerned to such a vacancy...

The Court recorded that a plain reading of the provisions indicates that if no vacancy exists in the institution where the deceased employee worked, the Deputy Director is first required to search for vacancies within the district, and if none exist, the Director must then search for vacancies elsewhere in the State.

The Court stated: "This rejection is in clear contravention of the mandate under Clause 1(a) and (b) of the Rules 2010."

The Court held that the respondents were duty-bound to act in strict conformity with the Rules when considering a legitimate claim for compassionate appointment.

The Court further observed: "Where the employee was working in a private aided education institution imparting pre-university education and an application for compassionate appointment is made, firstly, an attempt would have to be made to grant a compassionate appointment in the same institution. Secondly, if no vacancy is available there, the Deputy Director is required to identify a vacancy in any other private aided education institution within the district where the deceased worked. Thirdly, if no vacancy exists within the district, the Director is duty-bound to identify and fill vacancies anywhere in the State."

Also Read: Bombay HC Says Delay In Deciding Reference No Ground To Deny Relief | Orders Reinstatement Of Workers Terminated In 1995 With Compensation For Superannuated Or Deceased

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 20 September 2024 bearing No. G.KASHEA:Aaani.35:2021-22/1623 issued by the Additional Commissioner. The matter was remitted to the Deputy Director of Pre-University Education to reconsider the petitioner’s application by identifying a vacancy within the district where the deceased worked. If no such vacancy is available, the matter must be escalated to the Director to identify a vacancy elsewhere in the State for such appointment. The Court directed that the entire process be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Sri. Ankit Ramesh Desai, Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri. P.N. Hatti, HCGP

Case Title: Santosh Yamanappa Wadakar v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC-D:9480

Case Number: WP No. 103894 of 2025

Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj