Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, C.J. The appeal is directed against the order dated 14-6-2006 made in Writ Petition No. 32634 of 2003 at the instance of the State. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the respondent writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 32634 of 2003 when he was 19 years old and studying second year B.Com., his father who was working as a Junior Health Inspector died in harness. Hence, he applied for compassionate appointment and that apart the respondent-writ petitioner was also a physically challenged person. Despite he applied on 13-6-1990 for the post of Second Division Assistant, the respondents had not considered his application immediately thereafter. In the meanwhile, he completed his degree and graduated in April 1992 and became qualified for the post of First Division Assistant. But on 21-7-1992 the respondent without taking into consideration the degree qualification appointed him only as a Second Division Assistant, which necessitated the writ petitioner of course after joining duty in the post of Second Division Assistant to make further representation to consider him for the post of First Division Assistant. He also made a representation on 2-7-1992, but the respondents rejected the said representation. A further representation on 7-12-2001 was made requesting the respondents for appointing him as the First Division Assistant and as no orders were passed, Writ Petition No. 32634 of 2003 was filed seeking for a writ of mandamus to consider his representation to appoint him in the post of First Division Assistant. In fact, the Commissioner of the City Municipal Corporation also by proceedings dated 9-7-1992 recommended the petitioner to the post of First Division Assistant Taking all these facts into consideration, the learned Single Judge by order dated 14-6-2006 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as a First Division Assistant in the available vacancy within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Hence aggrieved by the said order, the State has filed the present writ appeal. 3. According to the learned Government Advocate, as per Rule 6(4) once an appointment is made under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, it shall be final and no fresh appointment to a different post or a higher post under these rules shall be permissible. 4. 3. According to the learned Government Advocate, as per Rule 6(4) once an appointment is made under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, it shall be final and no fresh appointment to a different post or a higher post under these rules shall be permissible. 4. In our considered opinion, the above rule is not attracted to the facts of this case at all. If the authorities had overlooked the qualification the applicant already possessed at the time of his appointment and also ignored the representation of the applicant mainly because the authorities have passed an appointment order to a lower post, will not take away the right of the petitioner to claim the higher post. Therefore, in our considered opinion Section 6(4) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. But at the same time, we find the respondent-writ petitioner was unnecessarily harassed for the past 17 years by the respondents. Hence we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to award exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/-. Writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.