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

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

The Court held that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application govern entitlement to compassionate appointment; because the appellants attained majority and applied well beyond one year from the date of death, they were ineligible under the amended proviso to Rule 5 and Rule 9(3) does not validate applications contravening amended Rule 5; accordingly the cancellations of appointment were justified.

Parties
Appellant: N. C. Santhosh; Appellant: Sayeda Farheen Banao; Appellant: Sri Santosh; Respondent: State of Karnataka & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From Division Bench of Karnataka High Court (final Disposal)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Compassionate Appointment, Statutory Interpretation, Retrospective Effect of Amendments, Transitional Provisions
Service Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Compassionate Appointment Statutory Interpretation Retrospective Effect of Amendments Transitional Provisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N. C. Santhosh

Appellant

Sayeda Farheen Banao

Appellant

Sri Santosh

Appellant

State of Karnataka & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From Division Bench of Karnataka High Court (final Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether norms applicable on the date of death of the government employee or on the date of consideration of the application govern entitlement to compassionate appointment
  2. 2 Whether appellants who attained majority beyond one year from the date of death could be considered for compassionate appointment under the amended proviso to Rule 5
  3. 3 Whether Rule 9(3) (transitory provision) covers applications made in contravention of amended Rule 5

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application govern entitlement to compassionate appointment; because the appellants attained majority and applied well beyond one year from the date of death, they were ineligible under the amended proviso to Rule 5 and Rule 9(3) does not validate applications contravening amended Rule 5; accordingly the cancellations of appointment were justified.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed by the Supreme Court
  • Impugned judgments of the Karnataka High Court and cancellations of appointments upheld