- (1.) The Petitioner assailing the correctness of the order dated 24.11.2009 passed in A. No. 4705/2005 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short, Tribunal') vide Annexure-E, presented the instant writ petition. He further sought for a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the father of the Petitioner late Narasareddy, while he was in service, died on 03.02.1995, leaving behind the Petitioner as a minor, as on the date of death of the deceased. On account of the death of the deceased - father of the Petitioner, he has filed an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds when he attained majority i.e., on 24.06.2004, contending that his father was a village accountant of Navadgi village, Chittapur Taluk, Gulbarga District, while he was in service, he died, but the Petitioner was a minor as on the date of death of his father. Further case of the Petitioner is that, his mother Smt. Pramila has submitted an application on 28.12.1995, requesting the 2nd Respondent to keep one vacancy for appointment on compassionate ground to the Petitioner when he attains the majority, which is produced at Annexure-A and thereafter the Tahsildar has sent a communication dated 25.10.2002, seeking clarification from the 1st Respondent regarding appointment on compassionate grounds, in turn, the 1st Respondent sent a communication vide Annexure-D stating that, the application filed by the mother of the Petitioner for reserving one vacancy for appointment on compassionate grounds, there is no rule to preserve one vacancy for appointment of the Petitioner on compassionate grounds on account of the death of the father of the Petitioner, even if he file an application after attaining majority, the same will be considered as per the existing rules which is permissible under the law. Be that as it may. He became a major and filed an application on 24.06.2004. The said application filed was forwarded by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent, in turn, considering the application filed by the Petitioner, has rejected the same by its order dated 24.02.2005 vide Annexure-D, holding that, he is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds as per Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate grounds) Rules, 1996 and Amended Rules, 2000 holding that, within one year from the date of death of the father, if the Petitioner became major, he is entitled for appointment, but in the instant case, Petitioner had attained majority after 9 years of the death of the father.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent dated 24.06.2005 and seeking appropriate relief, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, assailing the correctness of the order dated 24.02.2005 vide Annexure A6 produced in A. No. 4705/2005 on the file of the KAT, Bangalore, seeking for a direction to the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner to the post of second division assistant in the revenue department on compassionate grounds on account of the death of the father of the Petitioner. The said application filed by the Petitioner had come up for consideration before the tribunal on 24.11.2009, the tribunal in turn, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material on the file and after considering the well settled law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court in catena of judgments and with reference to the amendment effected to the first proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules in 1999 & 2000, held that, if the minor dependent of a deceased government servant is entitled to apply for appointment, only if he has attained the age of majority within one year from the date of death of the government servant and therefore, the Petitioner having not attained majority within one year from the date of death of the deceased government servant, was not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. Assailing the correctness of the order impugned and seeking appropriate relief as stated supra, the Petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition.;