D. V SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by a person, who claims to be the adopted son of a former employee, who was working as Sanitary Health inspector in Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation and who had died while in service. ( 2 ) PETITIONER has sought for providing appointment to him on compassionate grounds. ( 3 ) IT is the plea of the petitioner that as at the time of the death of his father, he was still a minor and that he having attained the majority during the year 2002, had filed an application for compassionate appointment of 21-11-2002. It is significant to note that the petitioner's plea is that his father died on 5-5-1995. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment on compassionate grounds even in the 1st respondent-Municipal corporation is governed by Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, issued under Notification No. DPAR 100 SCA 95, dated 12-9-1996, which has been adopted by the corporation. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel draws my attention to the provisions of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) rules, 1996. Rule 3 of the Rules provides for eligibility of appointment under these rules are restricted to the dependents of the deceased government servant and in the following order of preference viz. , (1) to the widow; (2) a son if the widow is not eligible for any valid reason and is not willing to accept the appointment sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 indicates that an adopted son or daughter shall not be eligible for appointment under these Rules. ( 6 ) PETITIONER has approached this Court praying for a writ of mandamus as his request has not been considered and orders not passed by the 1st respondent-Corporation. ( 7 ) PETITIONER himself has impleaded the 2nd respondent-One Smt. Akkamahadevi alias Neeladevi, whom he has described "calling herself as the wife of Shantayya Hiremath", father of the petitioner. ( 8 ) STATEMENT of objections has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent-Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation as well as on behalf of the 2nd respondent. ( 7 ) PETITIONER himself has impleaded the 2nd respondent-One Smt. Akkamahadevi alias Neeladevi, whom he has described "calling herself as the wife of Shantayya Hiremath", father of the petitioner. ( 8 ) STATEMENT of objections has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent-Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation as well as on behalf of the 2nd respondent. While it is the stand of the Corporation that the 2nd respondent who has been recognised even by Courts as the wife of late Shantayya Hiremdth has made a request to the Corporation for giving her appointment on compassionate grounds. On factual position also it is pointed out that the petitioner had described himself as the adopted son of late Shantayya Hiremath, as indicated in a legal notice that had been issued to the Corporation in terms of Annexure-G, dated 4-1-2003, and as such is not a person who is eligible for being considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. ( 9 ) SRI Manikappa Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent also points out that while the petitioner is not an eligible person for appointment, by filing the present writ petition the petitioner has effectively stalled the appointment being considered in favour of the 2nd respondent by obtaining an order of stay in these proceedings. Learned Counsels also points out that in the litigation between these two parties, it has been categorically held that the 2nd respondent is the wife of late Shantayya Hiremath. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, Sri Gurumath, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to dispute it by submitting that as against such judgment and the finding in the judgment a regular appeal is preferred, and that appeal is pending. ( 11 ) BE that as it may. The fact is that the petitioner had described himself as an adopted son and as of now there is recognition by the courts to the effect that the 2nd respondent is a person who fulfills the requirement of Rule 3 (2) (i) (a) of the Rules. If so, petitioner is in either view excluded for being considering for appointment on compassionate grounds. ( 12 ) THERE is no occasion for this Court to issue a writ as prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order granted earlier is vacated. --- *** --- .