N. C. SANTHOSH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 1177 · Decided: 04-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1177
N. C. SANTHOSH
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9280-9281 of 2014)
MARCH 04, 2020
[R. BANUMATHI, A. S. BOPANNA
AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law:
Appointment – Compassionate appointment – Cancelled on
finding that the appointments were made de-hors the provisions of
Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds)
Rules, 1996 as amended w.e.f. 01.04.1999 – Application by the
appointees challenging the cancellation – Tribunal found that the
applicants were ineligible under the Rules – Order of the Tribunal
was confirmed by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held:
Norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application
should be the basis for consideration of claim of compassionate
appointment – Compassionate appointment is a concession and not
a right – Criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied – The
application of the appellants should have been rejected at the
threshold as being not in conformity with proviso to Rule 5 –
Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds)
Rules, 1996 – r. 5 proviso.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. While Rule 5 of Karnataka Civil Services
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 as it
originally stood, enabled a minor dependant to apply within one
year after attaining majority, the Rule making authority with the
amendment effected from 01.04.1999 stipulated an outer limit of
one year from the date of death of the government servant for
making application for compassionate appointment. The validity
of the amended Rules is not challenged. 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
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 1177
1177
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
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
parents. [Para 10][1185-C-E]
2. In the present cases, when the government employee
died, the appellants were minor and they had turned 18, well
beyond one year of death of the parent. 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. [Para 11][1185-F-G]
3. The cases of the appellants are not covered by the
transitory provision of Rule 9(3) introduced by the notification
dated 28.5.2002. 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. [Para 13][1186-C-D]
4. 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.
Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and
the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirant.
[Para 14][1186-E-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1179
5. 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.
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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.