ORDER
Chandrashekaraiah, J.
1. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for striking down the Rule 3(3) of the Rules called the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 on the ground that it is arbitrary. Rule 3(1), (2) and (3) of the Rules reads as follows:
“3. (1) Appointment on compassionate grounds under these rules shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a matter of course.
(2) Appointment under these rules shall be restricted to the dependent of a deceased Government servant, the following order of preference namely…
(3) An adopted son or daughter of a deceased Government servant, shall not be eligible for appointment under these rules”.
According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the rule which excludes adopted son for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds is arbitrary. The appointment to be made on compassionate grounds is only to provide an employment to the dependents of deceased Government servant who were mainly depending upon his earnings. This rule is virtually an exception to the General Recruitment Rules. Therefore, no person can claim for an appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 no doubt excludes an adopted son or a daughter for consideration for appointment. Any person adopted may succeed to the estate of the deceased under the personal law, but this itself will not entitle him to get an appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, if the adopted son or a daughter is excluded from consideration, it cannot be said that there is any arbitrariness in framing the rules. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner also is not able to satisfy, how the said rule is arbitrary.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the authorities were not right in applying new rules so as to reject his application for appointment on compassionate grounds since the rules which were in force as on the date of the application should have been applied. No doubt the rules came into force from the 1996 whereas the petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate grounds is in the year 1994. Since the petitioner cannot be considered as an adopted son, it is immaterial whether the old rules or new rules are applicable. Therefore, there is no substance even in this contention also.
4. Writ petition is rejected.
