[Compassionate Appointment] Lawmakers Defined 'Family' To Include Specific Relatives Of Employee, Daughter-In-Law Not One Of Them: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a daughter-in-law, claiming compassionate appointment in the state's rural drinking water and sanitation department.

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the plea filed by Priyanka Halamani, who had challenged the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which had rejected her application seeking a direction to the government to appoint her.

The court said “The lawmaker as a matter of policy has framed the definition of 'family' to include specific relatives of the employee dying in harness and the daughter-in-law is not one of them. It is not within the domain of Courts to expand or constrict a statutory definition.”

The petitioner's counsel referring to Rule 2(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 2021, prayed for the court to construe it to include the daughter-in-law of the family and if that is done, the petitioner would get employment on compassionate ground.

The government opposed the petition saying that the rules in question being made by the delegate of the legislature need to be shown due deference by the coordinate organs of the State, the judiciary. Since, the Rule makers in their wisdom have not included the daughter-in-law in the definition of 'family' consciously, adding the daughter-in-law to the definition would virtually amount to manhandling the law which is impermissible.

Findings:

Rejecting the contention of the petitioners, the court said that the doctrine of reading down and thereby adding daughter-in-law to the definition of family for the purpose of staking a claim for compassionate appointment, does not merit acceptance.

It noted that ordinarily this doctrine is invoked to trim the contours of law which otherwise suffers from the vice of over-inclusiveness or such other infirmity and therefore is falling foul of a higher legal norm such as the parent statute, the constitution, etc.

The Courts do not readily resort to this doctrine in the absence of challenge to the legal provision on some constitutional/statutory grounds, it was said.

The court held “For the purpose of compassionate appointment, who all can lay a claim, is a matter of public policy that falls within the domain of law-maker, and the Courts being his coordinate branch, cannot run a race of opinions with him. A greater wisdom lies in confining to the conventional limits of judicial process, leaving the legislative one to the other coordinate branch, than otherwise.”

Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI for Petitioner.

Government Advocate G.K. HIREGOUDAR for Respondents

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 399

Case Title: Priyanka Halamani AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.105264 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order