The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, has quashed two endorsements issued by the North Western Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC) that had rejected a widow’s application for compassionate appointment on the grounds that she was over the specified age limit.
In a judgment delivered on October 14, 2025, Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the writ petition filed by the widow. The Court set aside the impugned endorsements and remitted the matter back to the Corporation, directing it to reconsider the petitioner’s application within eight weeks, based on her family’s circumstances and the “need” for appointment, rather than solely on the age bar.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Smt. Saroja W/o. Ganesh Rao N. Kondai, is the widow of a Driver cum Conductor who had been employed with the NWKRTC since April 4, 2006. Her husband died in harness on September 27, 2023.
Following the death of the family’s sole breadwinner, the petitioner filed an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.
On January 17, 2025, the Divisional Controller, NWKRTC (Respondent No. 2), issued an endorsement rejecting her application. The rejection was based on the Corporation’s scheme, which stipulated a maximum age limit of 38 years for the petitioner’s category (3B), with a 5-year relaxation for widows, making the cut-off age 43 years. The petitioner, being 47 years, 2 months, and 24 days old, was deemed ineligible.
The petitioner subsequently submitted another representation, explaining the family’s dire financial condition and “impecuniosities” following the death of her husband, and the responsibility of caring for her 13-year-old son. This representation was also met with a similar rejection endorsement on May 10, 2025.
The petitioner challenged both endorsements (Annexures H and K) before the High Court, seeking their quashing and a direction to the respondents to grant her the appointment.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Girish V. Bhat, argued that the scheme’s 43-year age limit defeats the very object of compassionate appointment. The counsel relied on a judgment by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court (W.P. No. 102208 of 2025), which, in identical circumstances, had held that an application cannot be turned down merely for crossing the age limit and had directed the Corporation to formulate a “humane” policy.
Representing the NWKRTC, learned counsel Sri. Prashant Hosamani “vehemently” refuted the submissions. He contended that compassionate appointment is not an “alternate source of recruitment” and that the “cut-off age in terms of the scheme is not relaxable at all.” He further submitted that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner was “wanting to be tossed in appeal.”
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, after considering the submissions, expressed “respectful agreement” with the Coordinate Bench’s ruling in W.P. No. 102208 of 2025. The Court noted that in the previous case, the bench had found that “such a strict implementation of the upper age limit would only cause injustice” and described the rejection as “not humane.”
To “amplify the order,” Justice Nagaprasanna referred to the Apex Court’s judgment in Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 290), which, the Court observed, “considers the entire spectrum of the law regarding compassionate appointment.”
The High Court specifically highlighted the Supreme Court’s finding that “indigence of the dependants of the deceased employee is the fundamental condition to be satisfied under any scheme for appointment on compassionate ground.”
Quoting the Apex Court’s judgment, the High Court observed: “What seems to be logical is that no dependant, who otherwise satisfies all criteria for compassionate appointment including suitability, should be told off at the gate solely on the ground of age-bar.”
Applying this principle, Justice Nagaprasanna held that the core consideration must be the applicant’s need. The judgment stated, “The Apex Court holds that the need for compassionate appointment should be the consideration by any Corporation or the employer while rejecting or accepting the application.”
The Court found that “No such analysis has been made in the case at hand” by the NWKRTC. The petition, the Court concluded, “deserves to succeed on the sole score that the Corporation will have to now reconsider the application… with regard to a relaxable age limit or the extendable age limit, owing to the circumstances that the applicant has narrated.”
The Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and passed the following order:
- The impugned endorsements dated 17.01.2025 and 10.05.2025 (Annexures H and K) were quashed.
- The matter was “remitted back to the hands of the Corporation.”
- The Corporation was directed to “reconsider the application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds within an outer limit of eight weeks” from the date of receipt of the order.
