ORDER
The learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dismissing his application and upholding the order passed by the authority terminating his services.
3. The petitioner/applicant's father was working as a first Division Clerk in the Department of Collegiate Education. He died while in service on 25.11.998 On the date of his death, the applicant was a minor. He had attained the majority on 24.6.2000 i.e, two years after the death of the Government servant.
4. The applicant made an application for appointment on a compassionate ground. He was appointed on 25.8.2000 However, the appointing authority later realised that the said application was not filed within one year from the date of death of the Government servant and as such the applicant was not eligible to be appointed. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued calling upon him to show cause why his services should not be terminated and his order of appointment should not be cancelled. He gave a reply and he did not dispute the facts. Therefore, the Director of Collegiate Education passed an order on 4.11.2003 canceling the appointment order. Aggrieved by the same, an application was filed before the Tribunal.
5. Even before the Tribunal, the facts were not disputed but it was contended that once an appointment order has been issued and the applicant had attained the majority, his appointment could not have been canceled. However, the Tribunal did not accept the said argument and dismissed the application on the sole ground that the applicant had not fulfilled the requirements of the Rule which gives a right to the dependent of the deceased Government servant an appointment on compassionate ground. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order contends that after the completion of the probation and having been a confirmed employee, no enquiry was conducted. Therefore, the impugned order passed is in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Rules and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.
7. We do not see any merit in the said contention. Enquiry presupposed that there is a disputed question of fact. In the instant case, the facts are not disputed. A dependent member of the deceased Government servant under the Rules is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment, if such a request is made within one year from the date of death of the deceased Government servant. Even if the dependent was a minor, he should make a request within one year from the date of his attaining majority. In the instant case, admittedly the applicant was minor on the date of death of the Government servent and after attaining the majority, he should have made an application within one year for compassionate appointment, but he has made an application nearly after two years. Therefore, on the day he made the application, he was not eligible, as he had not fulfilled the requirement of the provision and by oversight, he had been appointed. Once the authorities have noticed the illegality committed by them, they have the power to rectify their mistakes. Further the principles of natural justice has to be followed. Therefore, they issued a notice to him pointing out these defects and illegalities. The petitioner sent a reply in which he did not dispute these dates and facts. It is under these circumstances, when the date of death of the Government servant is not in dispute, the date on which the applicant attained majority is not in dispute, the date on which the compassionate appointment is made is not in dispute, the said application having been made one year after he attained the majority, the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for appointment at all on compassionate ground. Therefore, the appointment made was contrary to the statutory provision.
8. It is not a case of dismissal of the petitioner from service. It is a case of annulling the appointment order passed contrary to the statutory provisions. In these circumstances, no enquiry was really required and therefore, the order passed by the appointing authority - Tribunal is strictly in accordance with law.
9. We do not see any illegal infirmity, which calls for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
The learned Government Advocate is permitted to file her memo of Appearance within four weeks from today.