Judgment 1. Petitioner in this petition has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 27th May 2009 made by the petitioner, the copy of which has been produced herewith and marked as Annexure A and appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground to any suitable post in the first respondent Corporation. Further, petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari, to quash the order dated 5th December 2005 bearing No. Honnavar: AEE: Samanya: 05-06/3284, passed by second respondent vide Annexure B. 2. Petitioner herein claims to be the adopted son of the deceased late Junvav Thomas Dias and Smt. Rita Junvav Dias on 12th May 1982 according to the customs prevailing in the community and the said adoption was duly registered as per Adoption Deed dated 11th August 1998. The said adopted son has grown up and has been brought up by his adopted parents and has been under the care and custody of them. 3. When things stood thus, the adopted father of the petitioner, Shri. Junvav Thomas Dias was working as Second Division Assistant Grade-I in K.E.B. Gerusoppa. He died while in service on 11th March 1999. Be that as it may, the deceased adopted father of the petitioner was the only source of livelihood, inspiration and security to the adopted mother of the petitioner and petitioner himself. Due to the untimely death of the adopted father of the petitioner, there was severe financial crisis and the same affected them both socially and economically. However, the petitioner, being the adopted son of the deceased made all sincere efforts to settle down in life, but all his efforts went in vain. Meanwhile, he came to know from the well-wishers and friends that there is entitlement for appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the untimely death of the deceased employee. Therefore, he made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working in the HESCOM and he died while in service during 1999. Therefore, he made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working in the HESCOM and he died while in service during 1999. After coming to know that the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the untimely death of his adopted father, he filed an application on 8th November 2005, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, specifically stating that even during the lifetime of his adopted father, the adopted father had sought the appointment for his adopted son, on the ground that he is taking voluntary retirement on account ill-health. But, the Corporation had failed to consider the said request. Thereafter, after the death of the adopted father of the petitioner during 1999, the petitioner filed the application for appointment on compassionate grounds in the year 2005. The said application had come up for consideration before the second respondent, who in turn, issued the impugned order cum communication dated 5th December 2005 vide Annexure B stating that as per the terms and conditions of the circular dated 2nd May 1997 bearing No.KVM/B5/721/80-81, the adopted son or daughter is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. Further, it is stated that if at a any other member of the family of the deceased employer wants to seek appointment on compassionate grounds, the same has to be made within one year from the date of death of the deceased employee. Therefore, there is no scope to consider his request and accordingly, his request for appointment on compassionate grounds was declined. Accepting the said order cum communication dated 5th December 2005, passed/issued by the second respondent, vide Annexure B, after lapse of nearly four years, he submitted a representation dated 27th May 2009 vide Annexure A, requesting the authorities to reconsider his request for appointment on compassionate ground, contending that the adopted son or daughter is also entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds and therefore, to withdraw the order cum communication dated 5th December 2005 and to appoint him on compassionate grounds. But, the said representation appears to have not been considered. Therefore, being aggrieved by the impugned order cum communication dated 5th December 2005, petitioner has presented this writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra. 5. But, the said representation appears to have not been considered. Therefore, being aggrieved by the impugned order cum communication dated 5th December 2005, petitioner has presented this writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra. 5. Shri. J.S. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, at the outset submits that having regard to the status of the petitioner and the difficulty faced by him and his adopted mother in leading the day to day life, the case of the petitioner may be directed to be considered on compassionate grounds, on the basis that even the adopted son or daughter is entitled to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. Further, he submits that the circular dated 2nd May 1997, on the basis of which, the request of the petitioner is rejected cannot be sustained. To substantiate his submission, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Bihar Rajya Vidyut Vs. Chhathu Ram and others, disposed of on 7th May 1999 [ 2000 (1)ALT 1 SC] JT 1999 (10) SC 263 and (1999) 5 SCC 673 and in the case of Bishwanath Hari @ Bishun Hari Vs. State of Jharkhand and others disposed of on 16th October 2003 [ 2004 (1) JCR 119 Jharkhand] and submitted that following the said judgment, the application of the petitioner may be directed to be reconsidered for appointment on compassionate grounds after setting aside the impugned order cum communication vide Annexure B. 6. As against this, learned counsel appearing for second respondent, inter alia sought to justify the impugned order cum communication, stating that the same is just and proper as the adopted son is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the circular dated 2nd May 1997 bearing No.KVM/B5/721/80-81 and further he pointed out that the prayer sought for by petitioner is not sustainable and is liable to be rejected as misconceived on the ground of delay and latches also. Further he submits that, admittedly, the adopted father of the petitioner died as early as on 11th March 1999. Thereafter, for the first time, in the year 2005, he made an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, after lapse of more than six years. Further he submits that, admittedly, the adopted father of the petitioner died as early as on 11th March 1999. Thereafter, for the first time, in the year 2005, he made an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, after lapse of more than six years. As per the terms and conditions of the circular applicable for appointment on compassionate grounds, a person seeking appointment on compassionate grounds is required to file the application for appointment on compassionate grounds within one year from the date of death of the deceased employee. In the instant case, indisputably, the application for appointment on compassionate grounds is filed during 2005, after lapse of nearly six years. Therefore, the said application has been rejected on two grounds, one, the adopted son is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds, as per the circular referred above, two, the application for compassionate appointment is filed during 2005, after lapse of more than six years from the date of death of the deceased employee in the year 1999. Further, he vehemently submitted that after the impugned order cum communication dated 5th December 2005 is passed/issued, petitioner has filed a representation for reconsideration on 27th May 2009, vide Annexure A. which is, again, after lapse of nearly four years. Therefore, he submits that petitioner is not diligent and vigilant in redressing his grievance. When the petitioner wants to seek redressal of his grievance, by seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, he ought to have redressed his grievance we within the prescribed period and beyond the prescribed period, he cannot redress his grievance. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds both on the grounds of delay and latches as also on merits and hence, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed in limine. 7. So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for second respondent submits that the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and hence, the said judgments are of no help to him in this writ petition. Therefore, the prayer sought for by petitioner in this petition is liable to be rejected as a misconceived one. 8. Therefore, the prayer sought for by petitioner in this petition is liable to be rejected as a misconceived one. 8. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for both parties and after evaluation of the entire records available on file, it is manifest on the face of the impugned order cum communication passed/issued by second respondent dated 5th December 2005, vide Annexure B that, the request of the petitioner has been rejected on two grounds, one, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered in the light of the circular dated 2nd May 1997 bearing No.KVM/B5/721/80-81, the adopted son of the deceased employee is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds and there is no scope to consider his request; two, the application is not filed within one year from the date of death of the deceased adopted father of the petitioner in the year 1999. As per the terms and conditions of the circular dated 2nd May 1997, the applicant seeking appointment on compassionate grounds is required to file the application for the same within one year from the date of death of the deceased employee. In the instant case, the deceased employee died on 11th March 1999 and the request for appointment on compassionate grounds is made on 8th November 2005, well over six years from the date of death of the deceased employee. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the second respondent for rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and for issuing the impugned order cum communication are just and proper. Hence, I do not find any error or illegality as such committed nor it is the case of the petitioner that he has challenged the said circular dated 2nd July 1997, which is applicable to the petitioner for considering his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. Once an applicant files an application for appointment on compassionate grounds, as per the terms and conditions of the circular for appointment on compassionate grounds, the authority is bound to consider the request and make appointment. Once an applicant files an application for appointment on compassionate grounds, as per the terms and conditions of the circular for appointment on compassionate grounds, the authority is bound to consider the request and make appointment. But, in the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner does not fulfill any of the terms of the circular for appointment on compassionate grounds, inasmuch as, first of all, he has not filed the application well within one year from the date of death of his adopted father but, on the other hand has filed the application belatedly after lapse of nearly six years from the date of death of his adopted father on 11th March 1999. Therefore, the question of quashing the impugned order cum communication dated 5th December 2005 vide Annexure B does not arise and hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. 9. So far as the prayer sought for issuing a mandamus to the respondents to consider the representation dated 27th May 2009 vide Annexure A is concerned, I am of the view that the same does not warrant consideration for the reason that, it is not in dispute that there is delay of more than six years in submitting the first application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Upon receipt of the said application, the impugned order cum communication has been passed/issued by the second respondent on 5th December 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation, to reconsider his request on 27th May 2009, which is again after lapse of nearly four years. It appears the petitioner is not diligent in redressing his grievance within the reasonable time. Taking advantage of the judgments of the Apex Court, awaiting some relief and requesting to make them applicable to the facts of the case on hand is not a ground for redressal of his grievance. In the instant case, there is delay of nearly six years at the first instance in filing the application for appointment on compassionate grounds and thereafter there is delay of four years in making four years in making the request to re-consider his case. Therefore, having regard to the totality of the case on hand. I am of the view that there is no scope or provision or rule to consider such type of cases. Therefore, the second respondent is justified in passing/issuing the impugned order/communication. Therefore, having regard to the totality of the case on hand. I am of the view that there is no scope or provision or rule to consider such type of cases. Therefore, the second respondent is justified in passing/issuing the impugned order/communication. Hence, issuing the mandamus, directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 27th May 2009 is not justifiable nor the petitioner has made out any case for granting such a relief. 10. So far as the judgments of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner, as referred supra, are concerned, I am of the firm opinion that there is no dispute or quarrel regarding the well settled law laid down in the said judgments, but unfortunately the said judgments cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner for the reason that the judgments have to be applied having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the facts and circumstances of the case in the referred judgments are entirely different from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, the said judgments are of no assistance to petitioner in this petition. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly, it is dismissed.