The appellant was then removed from the service by order dated 28.12.2006 and when her appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 30.08.2007, she again approached the Tribunal.
Removed again on 28.12.2006 and relieved on 2.1.2007 on disciplinary ground Karnataka 2.7.2008 21.4.2009 15.6.2011 Administrative Disciplinary Tribunal action number warranted but termination upheld for unmerited appointment.
The action taken by the respondents in cancellation of appointment is under the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services Appointment on Compassionate Grounds Rules, 1996 and therefore relevant Rules are extracted hereinbelow Unamended Rule 5 Every dependant of a deceased Government servant, seeking appointment under these rules shall make an application within one year from the date of death of the Government servant, in such form, as may be numberified by the Government, from time to time, to the Head of the Department under whom the deceased Government Servant was working.
Provided that in the case of a minor, application shall be made within a period of one year after attaining majority.
8.2 Challenging the order of termination, the appellant filed application before the Tribunal.
The resultant writ petition filed by the appellant challenging cancellation of her appointment and the order of the Tribunal were dismissed, by the High Court under the impugned judgment dated 14.08.2013.
But the Tribunal found that appellants were ineligible for appointment under the Rules and accordingly dismissed the related applications.
She was served with a show cause numberice dated 2.6.2005 on the ground that she had number attained the age of 18 years within one year from the date of death of the government servant and accordingly, her service was terminated vide Order dated 15.6.2005.
The resultant writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, leading to the present appeals.
Page 7 of 16 8.4 Though, certain additional factual details are seen in the appeal relating to Sayeda Farheen Banao, but companye issue is numberdifferent from the other cases.
In all these cases, when the government employee died, the appellants were minor and they had turned 18, well beyond one year of death of the parent.
In her OA No.4901/2007, the Tribunal vide its order dated 21.04.2009 found that there was numbermisconduct on the part of the appellant.
9280 CA SLP C CA SLP C 9281/2014 No.
When their service was terminated the aggrieved appointees approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
Bangalore High 22.5.2012 W.P. 14.8.2013 2.12.2011 Court and 9.11.2012 Review Page 5 of 16 8.1 Some additional aspect needs to be numbericed to companyplete the factual details pertaining to the appeal arising out of the SLP C No.
Then rejected on after attaining 12.6.1997.
Appointment 25.8.2000 20.9.2001 14.12.2004 Removal 4.11.2003 I. 15.6.2005 but 18.2.2007 reinstated on 4.01.2006 on Tribunals order.
34878/2013 filed by Sayeda F. Banao.
34878/2013 No.
24169/2015 C. Santhosh Sayeda F. Banao Sri Santosh Deceased Govt.
N.H. Chandra Shakila Jabeena M. Indranna servant Gowda Ara Begum Reddy Dependant Appoi N.C. Santhosh Sayeda Farheen Sri Santosh Page 4 of 16 ntee Banao Date of Birth 25.6.1982 12.5.1982 24.3.1983 Parents Death 25.1.1998 24.5.1994 11.11.1998 Minors Majority 25.6.2000 12.5.2000 24.3.2001 Application for First, mother First father 1.7.2001 companypassionate applied on applied but was appointment.
In this case, on the death of the appellants mother on 24.5.1994, first, a request was made by the appellants father to provide him appointment on companypassionate ground which however, was rejected by the authorities on 12.6.1997.
Thereafter, the appellant after attaining majority on 12.5.2000 made an application for companypassionate appointment on 25.9.2000 and was appointed as a Second Division Assistant on 20.9.2001.
Nevertheless the Tribunal affirmed the cancellation of the appointment with the finding that the appointment was made de hors the amended Rule 5 of the KCS Appointment on Compassionate Grounds Rules and thus, the cancellation of appointment was found to be justified by the Tribunal.
appellant applied on 25.09.2000.
Thereafter, an enquiry was initiated against her under Rule 11 of the said Rules alleging misconduct and misrepresentation of her age at the time of submission of her application seeking appointment on companypassionate ground.
Then majority after attaining appellant applied majority on 29.06.2000.
