6 min readNew DelhiMar 19, 2026 07:00 PM ISTThe petitioner, who is a spinster and is disabled, is the minor’s next natural guardian. (Image is generated using AI)Reflecting that law functions on rules, not compassion, the Karnataka High Court rejected a guardian’s plea for compassionate appointment, holding that an exception cannot be made despite her being a disabled spinster and a guardian to a minor, as her application was beyond the time limit.Justice B M Shyam Prasad was hearing a disabled guardian’s plea for compassionate appointment in place of her dead brother and his wife, to maintain their minor child, who was now under her care, stating that she needs secure employment. The court opines that the petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of the amended eligibility.“The petitioner’s application is beyond the time limit prescribed under Compassionate Appointment Rules; an exception cannot be made on the ground that the petitioner is a spinster who is disabled and keen to look after the minor,” the order noted on March 18.No exception to disabled guardianThis court opined that the dicta is that compassionate appointment is an exception to regular recruitment, and there must be greater emphasis on the rule of law and that the courts must not readily interpret the provisions on compassionate appointment to extend the benefit of appointment on such grounds. In the present case, because the petitioner’s application is beyond the time limit prescribed under Compassionate Appointment Rules, an exception cannot be made on the ground that the petitioner is a spinster who is disabled and keen to look after the minor.The court opines that the petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of the amended eligibility, and no exception can be taken on the tribunal’s impugned order or the respondent’s decision to refuse her appointment on compassionate grounds.Child’s interestAdvocate M Nagarajan, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the facts and circumstances of the present case are peculiar and the court must ensure that the minor’s interest is protected with the appointment of the petitioner, who is a spinster and disabled.Mr Nagarajan underscored that in accordance with the amended rules, employee died, leaving behind minor children, a certified guardian living with them and taking care of them would be eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. He argued that the petitioner’s application, filed after the amendments were made in the rules, should be considered in the light of the changes. Time-bound applicationAdditional advocate general, Reuban Jacob, representing the state, submitted that the petitioner’s submissions are notwithstanding the peculiarities and perhaps the genuineness of the petitioner’s claim for appointment as a certified guardian of the minor. It was submitted that the petitioner had pursued her application for her appointment as a guardian under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, and she was appointed in March, 2021, when the Compassionate Appointment Rules did not contemplate appointment to a certified guardian. This amendment indeed creates eligibility for a certified guardian, but this eligibility is in the backdrop that the application by a dependant of a deceased employee must be filed within a year.The exception to this timeline is to be made in the case of a minor, and the minor to be eligible for compassionate appointment must complete 18 years within two years from the date of death of the concerned government employee, and should make an application within two years from the date of completing 18 years.Minor child’s guardianThe petitioner’s brother, Basavaraj Adennavar, was working as a village accountant with the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District.On July 4, 2017, he and his wife, Vidya, died in a road accident.They are survived by the petitioner(sister), her father, and the minor, who was only one year old at the time of the accident. The petitioner’s father filed an application on July 19, 2017, with the jurisdictional tahsildar for the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds, contending that he is aged and cannot look after the minor, the petitioner, who is a spinster and is disabled, is the minor’s next natural guardian, and she can look after him.Eligiblity for compassionate appointment The petitioner’s father stated that, given the family’s financial condition, the petitioner will need secured employment with the state government, and the petitioner has completed her graduation in B.Ed., and she is qualified to be appointed as a second division assistant.The jurisdictional tahsildar forwarded the application to the second respondent, who, by the communication on September 4, 2018, informed the petitioner’s father that the request is rejected, citing Rule of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1996, stating that a deceased employee’s sister will not be entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds.The petitioner has pursued her filial responsibilities towards the minor in filing an application for her appointment as the minor’s guardian under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. The jurisdictional Court allowed the application on March 19, 2021. The state government, on April 9, 2021, notified an amendment to the Compassionate Appointment Rules, under which it certified guardian of a minor child who takes care of the minor children as per the law would be within the definition of the family if the deceased Government’s spouse is also no more.Amendment of RulesThe petitioner, with these changes in the Rules, filed another application for appointment on compassionate grounds on August 18, 2022.The petitioner filed an application with the tribunal for directions to the state government/ the second respondent, to consider her application dated August 18, 2022, and for directions to these respondents to appoint her on compassionate grounds.The tribunal disposed of this application on March 3, 2023, directing the state government to consider the petitioner’s application on the merits and in accordance with the law within a certain timeline.The state government stated on July 7, 2023, informing her that she cannot claim the benefit under the amended Rule of the Compassion Appointment Rules because the first application for compassionate appointment was before this amendment.The petitioner challenged the state government’s above-mentioned order in 2023.The tribunal opined that the petitioner’s application based on Rule 3[2], as it was on the date of the demise of Basavaraj Addenavvar, July 4, 2017, she cannot be permitted a compassionate appointment.Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights. She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life. Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach. Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt LtdTags:Karnataka High Court