Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 241 (KAR)

B. G. Kalavathi v. State of Karnataka

2015-03-04

B.V.NAGARATHNA

body2015
ORDER : B.V. Nagarathna, J. 1. Petitioner has assailed endorsement died 11-12-2014 issued by respondent 2 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). A direction is also sought to respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate basis. Briefly stated, the facts are that petitioner's father P. Giriyappa was working as a Supervisor in the second respondent-Department (APMC, Challakere at Chitradurga District). He had two wives namely, Smt. B.H. Thippamma and late Smt. Saraswathi. B.H. Thippamma, is fourth respondent herein and petitioner and sixth respondent are children of late Saraswathi the second wife of late B. Giriyappa. Fifth respondent is the son of the first wife. Sixth respondent is the first daughter and petitioner is the second daughter of the second wife, Smt. Saraswathi, B. Giriyappa died on 14-7-2013 while in service. Second wife Smt. Saraswathi had predeceased him on 4-1-1994. After the death of Giriyappa, it appears there was a settlement amongst his family members and petitioner sought for appointment on compassionate basis in the second respondent-Department, by making a representation dated 19-7-2013 by furnishing the requisite documents. The second respondent on consideration of her representation, issued the impugned endorsement dated 11-12-2014. By that endorsement, it has been held that the petitioner, being the daughter of the second wife of deceased Giriyappa, is not entitled to appointment on compassionate basis. That endorsement is assailed in this writ petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader, who appears on advance notice for respondent 1 and perused the material on record. 3. During the course of submission, petitioner's Counsel pointed out that there has been a settlement amongst the family members of late B. Giriyappa and that one of the children of the second wife of late B. Giriyappa was to seek appointment on compassionate basis and the first wife and her children were to seek monetary benefits on the death of late Giriyappa. It is on that basis, petitioner sought appointment on compassionate basis but the second respondent by impugned endorsement has rejected her representation, which is illegal. 4. It is on that basis, petitioner sought appointment on compassionate basis but the second respondent by impugned endorsement has rejected her representation, which is illegal. 4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader by drawing my attention to Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as the "Rules") and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 442 of 2010, dated 29-8-2013, contended that the endorsement would not call for any interference as the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for appointment under the Rules as she is the daughter of the second wife of deceased Giriyappa. Having heard learned Counsel for parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that the petitioner herein is the second daughter of the second wife of the deceased Giriyappa, who died while in harness. It is also an admitted fact that deceased B. Giriyappa had married Smt. Saraswathi, during the lifetime of the first wife i.e., fourth respondent herein and during the subsistence of the first marriage. Therefore, in law, the second marriage was null and void. Keeping those aspects in mind, Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules, categorically states that the persons who are entitled to be considered for the purpose of appointment on compassionate basis on the death of the deceased Government servant in order of priority. The said rule prescribing eligibility for appointment takes note of the persons who are dependants and the order of their priority for consideration of appointment on compassionate basis. In fact, sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 categorically states that adopted son and daughter of the deceased Government servant shall not be eligible for appointment under the rules. Therefore, it is a right given to only certain persons who are considered to be dependants of the deceased Government servants, who are entitled to take appointment. This becomes clear on taking into consideration the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also clause (i)(c) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3. It is in this regard that the Division Bench of this Court has opined that legitimacy of the children of void marriages though provided for the purpose of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 16 thereof, cannot be applied for other purposes. It is in this regard that the Division Bench of this Court has opined that legitimacy of the children of void marriages though provided for the purpose of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 16 thereof, cannot be applied for other purposes. In that case, a Division Bench of this Court held that son of the second wife was not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate basis. Otherwise, if such persons are also to be considered, then it would result in encouraging second marriages, which are void and illegal under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the present case. In the circumstances, the endorsement impugned in this writ petition does not suffer from any infirmity. There is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.