Allow compassionate appointments in private PU colleges: Karnataka HC to State
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order, quashing the endorsement dated September 20, 2024, issued by the School Education Department, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, Santhosh Yamanappa Wadakar, from Bagalkot district.
The rejection was solely on the ground that there was no vacancy at the private aided institution where his father was working. The court has now referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Pre-University Education. The petitioner's father, working as a first-grade assistant in Adarsh Composite PU College in Bevoor of Bagalkot district, passed away in 2009 while in service.
The petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment to the chairman of Adarsh Vidya Vardhaka Sangha, which was forwarded to the Deputy Director, who rejected it. It was also endorsed by the joint director of Pre-University Education.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the deputy director was required to not only consider vacancies in the institution of the deceased, but also in any institution within the district, as per the Karnataka Pre-University Education (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 2010. If no vacancy exists, the deputy director is required to identify a vacancy anywhere in the state.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Karnataka High Court criticises conduct of officials of Nirmithi Kendra in denying information under RTI Act
The High Court of Karnataka has criticised the conduct of officials of the Nirmithi Kendra in attempting to suppress transparency by claiming that the Right to Information (RTI) Act is not applicable to the kendra, even though it is sponsored and controlled by the State government through the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (RDPR) Department. The court has also imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the Nirmithi Kendra, Chitradurga, for denying information under the RTI Act by claiming that it is not a public authority but a private society. Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order, while dismissing a petition filed by the project director of Nirmithi Kendra, Chitradurga, who had questioned the State Information Commission's 2017 direction for providing information sought by some persons under the RTI Act. The court noted that the government had set up Nirmithi Kendras for developing low-cost technology alternatives for rural housing, and its control and supervision is under many top officials of the zilla panchayats and the district administrations belonging to the cadre of the Indian Administrative Service and the Karnataka Administrative Service, Besides, these kendras are being funded by HUDCO, which is a government entity, and contracts are given to the kendra by the State government, and there is a preference for these kendras to carry out works of the government, the court pointed out. A perusal of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act would indicate that it is not only funding, but also control, which would have to be considered to determine whether it is a public authority or not, the court said, while pointing out that not only the funding for these kendras is provided by the government, but the works carried out by them are also considered government's works. 'The attempt made by the officers of Nirmithi Kendra to suppress such transparency leaves much to be desired and does not inspire confidence. By way of such conduct, the Nirmithi Kendra, Chitradurga, has successfully avoided disclosure of information and details,' the court said, while declaring that Nirmithi Kendras as public authorities under the provisions of the RTI Act.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC to examine plea asking if convicted politician can head political party
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would examine the question whether a politician can be denied the constitutional right to head a political party or association on the basis of conviction and being disqualified to vote. SC to examine plea asking if convicted politician can head political party A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi termed the issue raised in 2017 PIL as an "interesting question". According to the top court, the question should a constitutional court direct that irrespective of your right under Article 19, you will not be entitled to form an association of political ideology only because you are not entitled to cast vote was to be considered. The bench posted the PIL filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay raising the issue for November 19. "Merely because a person has been disqualified for a statutory right, you can't ipso facto deprive him of his constitutional right," Justice Kant said. Upadhyay, appearing in person, said a person disqualified from casting vote cannot distribute party tickets to the candidates. "This issue needs to be examined as it is a grey area. Several commissions including the law commission has emphasised on the need for not allowing the convicted to head a political party," he said. The bench called the issue "worth consideration" and noted it had "something in mind" but required a detailed hearing. Upadhyay said a person who cannot vote or contest can create a political party, even from jail, and political parties govern the entire country. "Suppose tomorrow Parliament enacts a law that no person will hold public office beyond the age of 80 years, can you also deprive him from leading a political party?" Justice Kant asked. Upadhyay has sought banning convicted persons from forming political parties and becoming their office bearers for the period they are disqualified. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
SC to examine plea asking if convicted politician can head political party
Agency: PTI Last Updated: New Delhi, Aug 12 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would examine the question whether a politician can be denied the constitutional right to head a political party or association on the basis of conviction and being disqualified to vote. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi termed the issue raised in 2017 PIL as an 'interesting question". According to the top court, the question — should a constitutional court direct that irrespective of your right under Article 19, you will not be entitled to form an association of political ideology only because you are not entitled to cast vote — was to be considered. The bench posted the PIL filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay raising the issue for November 19. 'Merely because a person has been disqualified for a statutory right, you can't ipso facto deprive him of his constitutional right," Justice Kant said. Upadhyay, appearing in person, said a person disqualified from casting vote cannot distribute party tickets to the candidates. 'This issue needs to be examined as it is a grey area. Several commissions including the law commission has emphasised on the need for not allowing the convicted to head a political party," he said. The bench called the issue 'worth consideration" and noted it had 'something in mind" but required a detailed hearing. 'Suppose tomorrow Parliament enacts a law that no person will hold public office beyond the age of 80 years, can you also deprive him from leading a political party?" Justice Kant asked. Upadhyay has sought banning convicted persons from forming political parties and becoming their office bearers for the period they are disqualified. PTI MNL MNL AMK AMK (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: August 12, 2025, 20:45 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
