Smt Shanthalakshmi @ Puttalakshmamma Vs. The K S R T C - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1194623
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnSep-04-2017
Case NumberWP 31329/2014
JudgeB.VEERAPPA
AppellantSmt Shanthalakshmi @ Puttalakshmamma
RespondentThe K S R T C
Excerpt:
1 in the high court of karnataka at bengaluru dated this the4h day of september, 2017 before the hon' ble mr. justice b. veerappa writ petition no.31329/2014(s-ksrtc) r between: smt. shanthalakshmi, @ puttalakshmamma, w/o.late k.bheemegowda, aged about50years, resident of kallikoppalu village, doddabyagathavalli post, kasaba hobli, holenarasipura taluk-573 211, hassan district. (by sri chethan b., advocate) and: the k. s. r. t. c., represented by divisional controller, hassan division, hassan-573 201. ... petitioner (by smt. h. r. renuka, advocate) … ... respondent this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to quash the endorsement dated the respondent as per annexure-a and quash the endorsement dated the respondent as per annexure-b. issued by issued by611.2009, 11.1.2011, 2 this writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘b’ group this day, the court made the following: order the petitioner is the first wife of late sri k. bheemegowda, who was working as a driver in the respondent-corporation is before this court for issue a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsements dated 6.11.2009 bearing no.karasa/havi/vk/ne/4861/ 07 and dated 11.1.2011 bearing no.karasa/havi/vk/employee/ne/201/11 issued by the respondent as per annexures-a and b and also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to appoint sri k.b. pradeep kumar, s/o late k. bheemegowda in their corporation on compassionate ground.2. it is case of the petitioner that she is the first wife of late k. bheemegowda, who was working as driver in the respondent-corporation died on 22.2.2009 while he was in service. subsequently, the respondent by an order dated 14.3.2009 expressed condolence for the 3 untimely death of the said bheemegowda and also intimated that his name has been removed from the ksrtc service rules with effect from 22.2.2009 and also furnished his service details asking the petitioner to contact the specified office to avail certain benefits.3. it is the further case of the petitioner that her husband late bheemegowda has left behind two wives and children as his legal representatives. at the time of death of late bheemegowda, he had already completed 16 years of unblemished service in the respondent – corporation. since the family of the said bheemegowda was entirely dependent on his income, the petitioner made a representation on 9.3.2009 to the respondent seeking appoint of sri k.b. pradeep kumar (son of 2nd wife of the said late sri k. bheemegowda) on compassionate ground which was rejected by the respondent on the ground that there is no provision for appointment on compassionate ground to the son of 4 second wife as per annexure-a dated 6.11.2009. thereafter, again she made one more representation on 3.12.2009 which was also rejected on similar ground on 11.1.2011 as per annexure-b. hence, the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for.4. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.5. sri chethan b., learned counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned endorsement issued by the respondent is contrary to law. the reasons assigned by the respondent while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to the son of second wife of late bheemegowda is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. he further contended that the respondent while deciding the case of the petitioner ought to have noticed that just because a person has two wives, it does not mean that his legal representatives are 5 incapable of seeking compassionate appointment since they have not committed any sin. the authorities ought to have considered the representation and appointed sri k.b. pradeep kumar, son of second wife and late k. bheemegowda. therefore, he sought to quash the impugned orders passed by the respondent by allowing the present writ petition.6. in support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this court in the case of j.mahendra –vs- the general manager (electrical), commerce, office and maintenance,bangalore electricity supply company ltd., and others passed in writ appeal no.3144/2010 (d.d. 1st april, 2014) to the effect that when the appellant is considered as legitimate son of deceased and when he has succeeded to all the rights to claim share of the deceased employee including the dcrg, etc., since a right to claim compassionate appointment 6 would arise only on account of the death of the government employee, such a right would also accrue to the son or daughter born through the second wife.7. per contra, smt. h.r. renuka, learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned endorsements issued by the respondent and contended that the very petitioner’s son sri k.b. kumaraswamy is already working in the bmtc since one year as driver- cum-conductor as on the date of filing of the application i.e., on 3.12.2009 and therefore, the petitioner sought compassionate appointment to her sister’s son – sri k.b. pradeep kumar. she further contended that the said pradeeep kumar, who is the aggrieved person has not approached this court, but the petitioner has approached this court. admittedly, since the son of the petitioner is already working in the bmtc., there cannot be two appointments in the same family. she further contended that since regulation 16 of the karnataka 7 state road transport corporation servants (conduct and discipline) regulations, 1971 prohibits bigamous marriage, question of considering compassionate appointment to the son of second wife of the deceased does not arise as rightly held by the authorities below. she further contended that though the deceased respondent died on 22.2.2009 and the application was filed on 9.3.2009 to which an endorsement was issued on 6.11.2009 and thereafter, the petitioner gave another representation on 3.12.2009 to which the 2nd respondent issued another endorsement dated 11.1.2011. admittedly, the writ petition is filed in the year 2014 which clearly indicates that there is no immediate necessity for appointment on compassionate ground since the first wife’s son i.e., petitioner’s son is already working in the bmtc, who can look after the entire family. in support of her contention, she sought to rely upon the latest judgment of this court in the case of the union of india and another –vs- sri 8 thoushif reported in 2017(1) kar. l.r. 243 (db). therefore, she sought to dismiss the writ petition.8. in view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is: whether the respondent is justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to the son of second wife of late k. bheemegowda in the facts and circumstances of the present case?.9. i have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available material on record carefully.10. it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the first wife of late k. bheemegowda, who died on 22.2.2009 while he was in service as driver. the 9 petitioner had filed representation on 9.3.2009 specifically stating that her husband had two wives [out of whom she (shantha lakshmi) is the first wife and shanthamma is the second wife].; they are residing together; her son (petitioner’s son) is already working in bmtc; and both the first wife and her children and second wife and her children are residing together in the same house cordially without any disturbances. therefore, she has filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground. the said representation was re-presented again on 3.12.2009 after rejection of the first representation requesting for compassionate appointment. the authorities considering the request made by the petitioner issued an endorsement again on 11.1.2011 rejecting the application on the ground that there is no provision under the regulation for appointment of the son of the second wife of the deceased. 10 11. the provisions of regulation 16 of the karnataka state road transport corporation servants (conduct and discipline) regulations, 1971 reads as under:16. bigamous marriage:-(1) no corporation servant shall enter into, or contract a marriage with a person having a spouse living; and 14 (2) no corporation servant having a spouse living shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any other person: provided that the corporation may permit a corporation servant to enter into, or contract, any such marriage as is refereed to in clause(1) and clause(2), if it is satisfied that; (a) such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such corporation servant and the other party to the marriage. (b) there is other ground for so doing.12. by a plain reading of the above said provision, it makes it clear that no corporation servant shall enter 11 into, or contract, a marriage with a person having a spouse living. no corporation servant having a spouse living shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any other person; provided that the corporation may permit a corporation servant to enter into, or contract, any such marriage as is referred to in clause (1) and clause (2) if it is specific that such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such corporation servant and the other party to the marriage, there are other grounds for so doing.13. admittedly in the present case, no such permission is obtained by the deceased late k. bheemegowda while he was in service to have contract of second marriage when the first wife is admittedly living and is before this court.14. it is also not in dispute that as on the date of filing of the application by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to k.b. pradeep 12 kumar, son of second wife – shanthamma, both – first wife, second wife and their respective children were residing together in the same house and their relationship is cordial. the right for compassionate appointment is only out of compassion and to offer solace to the family for immediate financial support, the policy of compassionate appointment is to be considered. but in the present case as can be seen from the representations, they are residing together cordially and there is no immediate financial threat to the family. it is also not in dispute that the very petitioner’s son, sri kumaraswamy is already working in the bmtc. when the regulation prohibits second marriage, question of considering second wife’s son, prathap kumar for appointment on compassionate ground does not arise as rightly rejected by the authorities in the impugned endorsement and the same is in accordance with law. 13 15. in so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this court in the case of j.mahendra –vs- the general manager and another in w.a.no.3144/2010 (d.d. 1.4.2014) has held that the son or daughter born to second wife is also entitled to appointment on compassionate ground, the same cannot be accepted, since the law laid down in the said case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. in the present case, there is prohibition of bigamous marriage under regulation 16 of the karnataka state road transport corporation servants (conduct & discipline) regulations, 1971. the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was a case where general rule was applicable and in the absence of any prohibition, this court relying upon the judgments of the hon’ble supreme court in the cases of vidhyadhari and others –vs- sukhrana bai and others reported in (2008) 2 scc238and rameshwari devi –vs- state of bihar and 14 others reported in (2000)2 scc431has held that son or daughter born through the second wife has a right to claim compassionate appointment. the facts of the said cases are entirely different from the facts and circumstances of the present case and hence, the said judgments relied upon by the learned counsel are not helpful to the petitioner.16. the division bench of this court while considering the very appointment on compassionate ground in the case of the union of india and another – vs- sri thoushif reported in 2017(1) kar.l.j243relying upon the judgment of the hon’ble supreme court in the case of rameshwari devi –vs- state of bihar (2000)2 scc431at para-12 has held as under:12. it is by now we, settled that no government servant has any vested right for compassionate appointment. it is only out of compassion and to offer solace to the family for immediate 15 financial support, the policy of compassionate appointment is to be considered. when there is no vested right with the government servant for seeking compassionate appointment, it cannot be treated as an ‘estate’ of any government servant or estate of any person who was in employment to apply the law of succession as per the personal law of the respective government servant. ultimately, the application filed by the son of the second wife came to be dismissed.17. it is well established by catena of dictums of the apex court that provision of appointment on compassionate ground is made to tide over the sudden crisis caused by the death of a bread winner, who leaves the family in penury without any means of livelihood and that such a provision is really in the nature of an exception to the general principle of equality in the matter of recruitment. it is also to be remembered that 16 such a provision made by way of an exception in the general rule cannot subsume the main principle. if we keep in mind the object and purpose of compassionate appointment which is intended to provide immediate relief to the family in distress and the whole concept of providing appointment on compassionate grounds which is evolved by way of an exception to the general rules of recruitment.18. admittedly in the present case, the petitioner – first wife seeking appointment to the son of second wife of the deceased and in the application, she has clearly admitted that both the petitioner-first wife, second wife and their family members are residing together cordially. therefore, it is clear that there is no tied over the sudden crisis caused by the death of a bread winner and there is no financial distress in the family and admittedly, there is a delay in filing the writ petition which clearly depicts that there is no financial 17 distress and even otherwise in the same family, the petitioner’s son is already an employee in the bmtc and there cannot be one more appointment on compassionate ground in the same family, when regulation 16 of the karnataka state road transport corporation servants (conduct and discipline) regulations, 1971 prohibits second marriage.19. admittedly in the present case, when there is a prohibition of second marriage under regulation 16 of the karnataka state road transport corporation servants (conduct and discipline) regulations, 1971, the petitioner has not questioned the regulation before this court and admittedly, when one of the member of the family is earning and all the members are residing in one roof in cordial terms, there cannot be one more appointment on compassionate ground.20. in view of the above, the point raised in the writ petition is answered in the affirmative holding that 18 the respondent is justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the son of the second wife and the same is in accordance with law. the petitioner is not entitled for any relief under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india. accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. nsu/- sd/- judge
Judgment:

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE4H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.31329/2014(S-KSRTC) R BETWEEN: SMT. SHANTHALAKSHMI, @ PUTTALAKSHMAMMA, W/O.LATE K.BHEEMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT50YEARS, RESIDENT OF KALLIKOPPALU VILLAGE, DODDABYAGATHAVALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK-573 211, HASSAN DISTRICT. (BY SRI CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) AND: THE K. S. R. T. C., REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN-573 201. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. H. R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) … ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED THE RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED THE RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-B. ISSUED BY ISSUED BY611.2009, 11.1.2011, 2 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

The petitioner is the first wife of late Sri K. Bheemegowda, who was working as a driver in the respondent-Corporation is before this Court for issue a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsements dated 6.11.2009 bearing No.KARASA/HAVI/VK/NE/4861/ 07 and dated 11.1.2011 bearing No.KARASA/HAVI/VK/EMPLOYEE/NE/201/11 issued by the respondent as per Annexures-A and B and also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to appoint Sri K.B. Pradeep Kumar, S/o late K. Bheemegowda in their Corporation on compassionate ground.

2. It is case of the petitioner that she is the first wife of late K. Bheemegowda, who was working as driver in the respondent-Corporation died on 22.2.2009 while he was in service. Subsequently, the respondent by an order dated 14.3.2009 expressed condolence for the 3 untimely death of the said Bheemegowda and also intimated that his name has been removed from the KSRTC Service Rules with effect from 22.2.2009 and also furnished his service details asking the petitioner to contact the specified office to avail certain benefits.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that her husband late Bheemegowda has left behind two wives and children as his legal representatives. At the time of death of late Bheemegowda, he had already completed 16 years of unblemished service in the respondent – Corporation. Since the family of the said Bheemegowda was entirely dependent on his income, the petitioner made a representation on 9.3.2009 to the respondent seeking appoint of Sri K.B. Pradeep Kumar (Son of 2nd wife of the said late Sri K. Bheemegowda) on compassionate ground which was rejected by the respondent on the ground that there is no provision for appointment on compassionate ground to the son of 4 second wife as per Annexure-A dated 6.11.2009. Thereafter, again she made one more representation on 3.12.2009 which was also rejected on similar ground on 11.1.2011 as per Annexure-B. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

5. Sri Chethan B., learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned endorsement issued by the respondent is contrary to law. The reasons assigned by the respondent while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to the son of second wife of late Bheemegowda is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He further contended that the respondent while deciding the case of the petitioner ought to have noticed that just because a person has two wives, it does not mean that his legal representatives are 5 incapable of seeking compassionate appointment since they have not committed any sin. The authorities ought to have considered the representation and appointed Sri K.B. Pradeep Kumar, son of second wife and late K. Bheemegowda. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned orders passed by the respondent by allowing the present writ petition.

6. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of J.

Mahendra –vs- The General Manager (Electrical), Commerce, Office and Maintenance,Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., and others passed in Writ Appeal No.3144/2010 (D.D. 1st April, 2014) to the effect that when the appellant is considered as legitimate son of deceased and when he has succeeded to all the rights to claim share of the deceased employee including the DCRG, etc., since a right to claim compassionate appointment 6 would arise only on account of the death of the government employee, such a right would also accrue to the son or daughter born through the second wife.

7. Per contra, Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned Counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned endorsements issued by the respondent and contended that the very petitioner’s son Sri K.B. Kumaraswamy is already working in the BMTC since one year as driver- cum-conductor as on the date of filing of the application i.e., on 3.12.2009 and therefore, the petitioner sought compassionate appointment to her sister’s son – Sri K.B. Pradeep Kumar. She further contended that the said Pradeeep Kumar, who is the aggrieved person has not approached this Court, but the petitioner has approached this Court. Admittedly, since the son of the petitioner is already working in the BMTC., there cannot be two appointments in the same family. She further contended that since Regulation 16 of the Karnataka 7 State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 prohibits bigamous marriage, question of considering compassionate appointment to the son of second wife of the deceased does not arise as rightly held by the authorities below. She further contended that though the deceased respondent died on 22.2.2009 and the application was filed on 9.3.2009 to which an endorsement was issued on 6.11.2009 and thereafter, the petitioner gave another representation on 3.12.2009 to which the 2nd respondent issued another endorsement dated 11.1.2011. Admittedly, the writ petition is filed in the year 2014 which clearly indicates that there is no immediate necessity for appointment on compassionate ground since the first wife’s son i.e., petitioner’s son is already working in the BMTC, who can look after the entire family. In support of her contention, she sought to rely upon the latest judgment of this Court in the case of The Union of India and Another –vs- Sri 8 Thoushif reported in 2017(1) Kar. L.R. 243 (DB). Therefore, she sought to dismiss the writ petition.

8. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is: Whether the respondent is justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to the son of second wife of late K. Bheemegowda in the facts and circumstances of the present case?.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the available material on record carefully.

10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the first wife of late K. Bheemegowda, who died on 22.2.2009 while he was in service as driver. The 9 petitioner had filed representation on 9.3.2009 specifically stating that her husband had two wives [out of whom she (Shantha Lakshmi) is the first wife and Shanthamma is the second wife].; they are residing together; her son (petitioner’s son) is already working in BMTC; and both the first wife and her children and second wife and her children are residing together in the same house cordially without any disturbances. Therefore, she has filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground. The said representation was re-presented again on 3.12.2009 after rejection of the first representation requesting for compassionate appointment. The authorities considering the request made by the petitioner issued an endorsement again on 11.1.2011 rejecting the application on the ground that there is no provision under the Regulation for appointment of the son of the second wife of the deceased. 10 11. The provisions of Regulation 16 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 reads as under:

16. Bigamous marriage:-(1) No Corporation servant shall enter into, or contract a marriage with a person having a spouse living; and 14 (2) No Corporation servant having a spouse living shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any other person: Provided that the Corporation may permit a Corporation servant to enter into, or contract, any such marriage as is refereed to in clause(1) and clause(2), if it is satisfied that; (a) such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such Corporation servant and the other party to the marriage. (b) There is other ground for so doing.

12. By a plain reading of the above said provision, it makes it clear that no Corporation servant shall enter 11 into, or contract, a marriage with a person having a spouse living. No Corporation servant having a spouse living shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any other person; provided that the Corporation may permit a Corporation servant to enter into, or contract, any such marriage as is referred to in Clause (1) and Clause (2) if it is specific that such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such Corporation servant and the other party to the marriage, there are other grounds for so doing.

13. Admittedly in the present case, no such permission is obtained by the deceased late K. Bheemegowda while he was in service to have contract of second marriage when the first wife is admittedly living and is before this Court.

14. It is also not in dispute that as on the date of filing of the application by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to K.B. Pradeep 12 Kumar, son of second wife – Shanthamma, both – first wife, second wife and their respective children were residing together in the same house and their relationship is cordial. The right for compassionate appointment is only out of compassion and to offer solace to the family for immediate financial support, the policy of compassionate appointment is to be considered. But in the present case as can be seen from the representations, they are residing together cordially and there is no immediate financial threat to the family. It is also not in dispute that the very petitioner’s son, Sri Kumaraswamy is already working in the BMTC. When the Regulation prohibits second marriage, question of considering second wife’s son, Prathap Kumar for appointment on compassionate ground does not arise as rightly rejected by the authorities in the impugned endorsement and the same is in accordance with law. 13 15. In so far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this Court in the case of J.

Mahendra –vs- The General Manager and Another in W.A.No.3144/2010 (D.D. 1.4.2014) has held that the son or daughter born to second wife is also entitled to appointment on compassionate ground, the same cannot be accepted, since the law laid down in the said case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, there is prohibition of bigamous marriage under Regulation 16 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971. The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it was a case where general rule was applicable and in the absence of any prohibition, this Court relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vidhyadhari and Others –vs- Sukhrana Bai and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC238and Rameshwari Devi –vs- State of Bihar and 14 Others reported in (2000)2 SCC431has held that son or daughter born through the second wife has a right to claim compassionate appointment. The facts of the said cases are entirely different from the facts and circumstances of the present case and hence, the said judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel are not helpful to the petitioner.

16. The Division Bench of this Court while considering the very appointment on compassionate ground in the case of the Union of India and Another – vs- Sri Thoushif reported in 2017(1) Kar.L.J243relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi –vs- State of Bihar (2000)2 SCC431at para-12 has held as under:

12. It is by now we, settled that no Government Servant has any vested right for compassionate appointment. It is only out of compassion and to offer solace to the family for immediate 15 financial support, the policy of compassionate appointment is to be considered. When there is no vested right with the Government servant for seeking compassionate appointment, it cannot be treated as an ‘Estate’ of any Government servant or estate of any person who was in employment to apply the law of succession as per the personal law of the respective Government servant. Ultimately, the application filed by the son of the second wife came to be dismissed.

17. It is well established by catena of dictums of the Apex Court that provision of appointment on compassionate ground is made to tide over the sudden crisis caused by the death of a bread winner, who leaves the family in penury without any means of livelihood and that such a provision is really in the nature of an exception to the general principle of equality in the matter of recruitment. It is also to be remembered that 16 such a provision made by way of an exception in the General Rule cannot subsume the main principle. If we keep in mind the object and purpose of compassionate appointment which is intended to provide immediate relief to the family in distress and the whole concept of providing appointment on compassionate grounds which is evolved by way of an exception to the General Rules of Recruitment.

18. Admittedly in the present case, the petitioner – first wife seeking appointment to the son of second wife of the deceased and in the application, she has clearly admitted that both the petitioner-first wife, second wife and their family members are residing together cordially. Therefore, it is clear that there is no tied over the sudden crisis caused by the death of a bread winner and there is no financial distress in the family and admittedly, there is a delay in filing the writ petition which clearly depicts that there is no financial 17 distress and even otherwise in the same family, the petitioner’s son is already an employee in the BMTC and there cannot be one more appointment on compassionate ground in the same family, when Regulation 16 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 prohibits second marriage.

19. Admittedly in the present case, when there is a prohibition of second marriage under Regulation 16 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971, the petitioner has not questioned the Regulation before this Court and admittedly, when one of the member of the family is earning and all the members are residing in one roof in cordial terms, there cannot be one more appointment on compassionate ground.

20. In view of the above, the point raised in the writ petition is answered in the affirmative holding that 18 the respondent is justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the son of the second wife and the same is in accordance with law. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Nsu/- Sd/- Judge