WA 96/2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

W.A.No.96/2020 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

Smt. M.Soumya,
D/o Manjappa,
Aged about 21 years,
Tadaga Colony,
Shivani Railway Station,
Shivani Hobli, Tarikere Taluk,
Chickmagalur District - 577 549. … APPELLANT

(By Sri Pruthvi Wodeyar, Adv.)

AND:

1. The Director, K.P.T.C.L.,

(Government & Human Resource),
Corporate Office,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bengaluru - 560 009.

2. The Executive Engineer (V),

K.P.T.C.L., Transmission Line
& Sub Station Division,.
Shanth Manon, 2nd Floor,
Gandhinagara Main Road,
Shivamogga - 577 202.
 WA 96/2020
2

3. The Executive Engineer (V),

K.P.T.C.L., T.L & S.S. Division,
B.H.Road, Vidyanagar,
Koratagere Taluk,
Tumakuru District.

4. Assistant Engineer (ELC),

K.P.T.C.L. M.U.S.S.,
Ajjampura - 577 547,
Tarikere Taluk,
Chickmagalur District.

5. Assistant Executive Engineer (V),

Nodal Centre, K.P.T.C.L.,
Tarikere, Tarikere Taluk,
Chickmagalur District - 577 549. … RESPONDENTS

(By Sri B.L.Sanjeev, Adv. for R-1 to 3)

This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the

Karnataka High Court, praying to set aside the order dated
04.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.49874/2019.

This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day,

Satish Chandra Sharma J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The present writ appeal is arising out of the order

dated 04.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.49874/2019 (M.Soumya Vs The Director, KPTCL).

 WA 96/2020
3

2. The facts of the case reveal that the brother of the

present appellant was an employee serving Karnataka

Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) and while

in service expired on 06.03.2017. The appellant submitted

an application for grant of compassionate appointment on

10.10.2017 and the qualification mentioned in the form

which is on record, reflects that at the relevant point of

time she was holding the qualification of Secondary School

Leaving Certificate (SSLC). Initially, she was not appointed

by way of compassionate appointment. However, on

account of intervention of this Court, finally an

appointment order has been issued appointing her on the

post of Office Attendant Grade-II. A writ petition was

preferred before this Court claiming compassionate

appointment on a higher post and the learned Single Judge

has dismissed the writ petition keeping in view the

judgment delivered in the case of STATE OF HIMACHAL

PRADESH & ANOTHER VS SHASHIKUMAR – (2019)3 SCC

653.
 WA 96/2020
4

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently

argued before this Court that the appellant is holding a

Degree in Engineering, and therefore, as per the policy of

the KPTCL dated 23.09.2011, the appellant should have

been granted appointment on the post of Junior Engineer

(Civil).

4. Undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellant

was not holding the aforesaid qualification on the date she

has submitted the application for grant of compassionate

appointment. Clause 8 of the same Circular provides that

the qualification as on the date of application should be

considered. It further provides that once the applicant is

appointed and has reported on duty, if claim is made for

appointment to a higher post by producing proof of

acquiring higher qualification, then the same cannot be

considered, meaning thereby there was a specific bar in

respect of subsequent qualification obtained by a candidate

pursuant to his/her submission of the application for

compassionate appointment.
 WA 96/2020
5

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance

upon the judgment delivered in the case of SURYAKANT

KADAM VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS - (2002)9 SCC

445. In the aforesaid case, the appellant therein was

appointed as Second Division Clerk on compassionate

appointment and two other persons were appointed as

Second Division Assistant/Clerk and later on they were

appointed/promoted as Inspectors. Whereas in the present

case, no such contingency is involved. The appellant has

not brought to the notice of this Court any such

appointment made by the respondent in similar

circumstances on a higher post, and therefore, the

judgment relied upon does not help the present appellant

in any manner.

6. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment

delivered in the case of THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL

ADMINISTRATION & OTHERS VS H.N.GURUPRASAD &

ANOTHER – ILR 2009 KAR 1462. In the aforesaid case, the

applicant therein has acquired higher qualification and the

Division Bench of this Court has held that merely because

 WA 96/2020
6

the applicant therein has been appointed on the lower post,

it will not take away the right of the applicant therein to

claim higher post and the order passed by the learned

Single Judge was not interfered with, directing appointment

on a higher post. In the present case, no such policy was

under discussion which is applicable in the case of KPTCL.

The KPTCL is having a specific policy which provides for

taking into account the qualification which a candidate

possess at the time of submission of his/her application for

grant of compassionate appointment, and therefore, the

judgment relied upon is again of no help to the appellant.

7. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS UMRAO

SINGH - (1994)6 SCC 560, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

held in paragraph 8 as under:

"8. Admittedly, the respondent's father

died in harness while working as Sub-
Inspector, C.I.D. (Special Branch) on
16.3.1988. The respondent filed an application
on 8.4.1988 for his appointment on
compassionate ground as Sub-Inspector or
L.D.C. according to the availability of vacancy.
On a consideration of his plea, he was
 WA 96/2020
7

appointed to the post of L.D.C. by order dated

14.12.1989. He accepted the appointment as
L.D.C. Therefore, the right to be considered
for the appointment on compassionate ground
was consummated. No further consideration
on compassionate ground would ever arise.
Otherwise, it would be a case of 'endless
compassion'. Eligibility to be appointed as
Sub-Inspector of Police is one thing, the
process of selection is yet another thing.
Merely because of the so-called eligibility, the
learned Single Judge of the High Court was
persuaded to the view that direction be issued
under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules which has no
application to the facts of this case."

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, keeping in

view the aforesaid judgment, it will become an endless

process in the matter of grant of compassionate

appointment, if such requests are entertained by the High

Courts. The appellant has accepted the post with open

eyes, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified

in dismissing the writ petition. The compassionate

appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is a

welfare step on the part of the employer to help the family

 WA 96/2020
8

in distress on account of death of the sole bread earner

and the respondents have provided a job to the appellant

keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the

case. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with

the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Writ appeal

is dismissed.

Sd/-
JUDGE

Sd/-
JUDGE

KK