In the High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION Nos.207050/2014 & 207278-279/2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN : 1. Sreedhara Patil S/o Hanumangouda Age: 25 years, Occ: Unemployed R/o Jalahalli, Tq. Deodurg Dist: Raichur 2. Veeresh S/o Sharnappa Age: 25 years, Occ: Unemployed R/o Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur 3. Adappa S/o Channabassappa Age: 34 years, Occ: unemployed R/o Kota Village, Tq. Lingasugur Dist: Raichur ... Petitioners (By Sri Ravindra Reddy, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka By its Secretary Department of Mines and Zeology, Vidhana Soudha Bangalore – 560 001. 2 2. The Managing Director of Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti Tq. Lingasugur Dist. Raichur – 584101. 3. The General Manager Co-ordination Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti, Tq. Lingasugur Dist. Raichur – 584101 4. The Head of the Department of Engineering Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti, Tq. Lingasugur Dist. Raichur – 584101 5. The Head of the Department of Mining Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti, Tq. Lingasugur Dist. Raichur – 584101 6. The Head of the Department of Administration of Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., of Hutti, Tq. Lingasugur Dist. Raichur – 584101 7. The Head of the Department of Metallurgy of Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti Tq. Lingasugur, Dist. Raichur – 584101 ... Respondents (By Sri Shivakumar Tengli, AGA for R1) 3 These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue writ of certiorari quashing impugned list dated 24.11.2014 in No. ºÀaUÀ/ªÀiÁ¸À/¨ÉÊ.C£ÀºÀðvÉ/2014 vide Annexure-D issued by the respondent No.3. These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this day the Court made the following: ORDER The petitioners have raised the challenge to the list, dated 24.11.2014 (Annexure-D) prepared by the third respondent for the purpose of giving the appointment on compassionate ground. As the serving employees are found to be medically unfit, one of their dependents is being given the compassionate appointment. 2. Sri Ravindra Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no scheme for making the compassionate appointments in the respondent Hatti Gold Mines Company Limited. He submits that some of the employees have already retired and that no purpose therefore would be served by giving the employment to one of their dependents. He submits that out of 104 persons who are 4 now declared to be medically unfit, are still working. He submits that they have not acquired any medical disability as such. 3. Sri Ravindra Reddy submits that the appointments are being made without issuing the advertisement and calling for the applications. He submits that if the regular recruitment process is initiated, the petitioners would also get an opportunity to take part in it. 4. In support of his submissions, he has relied on this Court’s decision in the case of H.M. Mohan Kumar and others vs. Karnataka Slum Clearance Board and others reported in (2006) 2 AIR Kar R 302. 5. The submissions of Sri Ravindra Reddy have received my thoughtful consideration. The petitioners have nothing to do with the respondent – Hatti Gold Mines Company. Admittedly, this is not public interest litigation. The petitioners have no litigational competence to raise the 5 challenge to the proposed compassionate appointments. On the short ground of the locus standi, these petitions are liable to be rejected. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioners have registered with the Employment Exchange Bureau. There are no averments in the writ petition that as to where all they applied for the jobs. 6. Giving the appointment to the dependents of the employees who acquire the disability in the hazardous mining activity is a welfarist programme. An unemployed person cannot contend with any rate of success that the compassionate appointment should not be given on medical ground, so that the petitioners would get those jobs. Making the distinction between the dependents of the disabled employees and others is a reasonable classification. 7. These petitions are also liable to be dismissed for the non-joinder of the necessary parties. 104 persons who are declared to be medically unfit and whose dependents are to be given the job are not made parties to this petition. If the 6 impugned list is quashed without hearing them, it amounts to the negation of the principals of natural justice. 8. These petitions are also premature as no appointments whatsoever are given to the dependents of the displaced employees. If, as and when the compassionate appointments are given, it is always open to the genuinely aggrieved party to approach proper forum for challenging the same. Thus, not finding an iota of bonafide and iota of merit in these petitions, these petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sdu.

Load more