ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner"s father by name Maltesh Krishnarao Kulkarni, while working as First Division Assistant in the Office of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Ron, Dist: Gadag, died on 09.05.2001 leaving him surviving two daughters, the petitioner and another Kumari Poornima. Petitioner was born on 18.10.1985 and a minor on the date of death of her father. Having made an application dated 11.02.2002, Annexure-A to the first respondent to provide a suitable appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules") by communication dated 01.10.2002, Annexure-B. 2. Petitioner having attained majority on 18.10.2003, filed another application dated 06.01.2004, Annexure-C for appointment on compassionate grounds. That application when rejected by Letter dated 31.10.2011, Annexure-N of the 2nd respondent, was informed by Letter dated 10.01.2012, Annexure-P of the 4th respondent, on the ground that the earlier application was rejected, since it did not satisfy Rule 9(3) of the Rules and another application for the very same appointment on compassionate ground could not be considered. Hence this petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Manjunath M. Lala Sangi vs. The Registrar General W.P. No. 34695/2000, Dated: 27.02.2004, Annexure-Q, petitioner"s application Annexure-C deserves reconsideration, more so, in the light of the 3rd Amendment to Rule 9(3) of the Rules w.e.f. 29.05.2002. Learned Counsel submits that petitioner, though attained majority on 18.10.2003, nevertheless, having made an application on 11.02.2002, Annexure-A within one year of death of her father, though a minor on that date, nevertheless, the first respondent ought to have considered and extended an appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. The proviso to Rule 5 as substituted w.e.f. 28.11.2000 reads thus: Provided that in the case of a minor he must have attained the age of eighteen years within one year from the date of the death of the Government servant and he must make an application within one year thereafter. Thus, on the death of a Government servant, a member of his family, if a minor, files an application within one year therefrom, must attain majority on the date of application, for an appointment on compassionate ground. 5. Thus, on the death of a Government servant, a member of his family, if a minor, files an application within one year therefrom, must attain majority on the date of application, for an appointment on compassionate ground. 5. Rule 9(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Third Amendment) Rules 2002, w.e.f. 29.05.2002 reads thus; 3. Amendment of Rule 9.- In Rule 9 of the said Rules, after sub-Rule (2), the following shall be inserted, namely; (3) All applications for appointment on compassionate grounds made between the thirteenth day of September, 1996 and the date of commencement of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2002 by the dependants of the Government servants who died on or after twentieth October, 1989 (other than the applications made by such dependants after the first day of April. 1999 and till the date of such commencement in contravention of the first proviso to Rule 5) which are- (i) rejected on the ground that they were not made within the period specified in Rule 5, or (ii) pending on such date of commencement, shall be deemed to have been made within the period specified under Rule 5 and shall be considered or as the case may be, considered for appointment subject to other provisions of these rules. (emphasis supplied) 6. A hare perusal of sub Rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules discloses that pursuant to the Third Amendment Rules, 2002 which came into force as on 29.05.2002, provides that all applicants for appointment on compassionate grounds made between 13.09.1996 and date of commencement of Third Amendment Rules, 2002 i.e., 29.05.2002, by dependants of the Government servant who died on or after 20.10.1999, which were rejected on the ground of having not made within the period specified in Rule 5 or pending on such date of commencement, deemed to have been made within the period specified in Rule 5 for consideration. However, the exception is applications filed by dependants after the first day of April, 1999 and till the date of commencement i.e., 29.05.2002 in contravention of the first proviso to Rule 5. 7. However, the exception is applications filed by dependants after the first day of April, 1999 and till the date of commencement i.e., 29.05.2002 in contravention of the first proviso to Rule 5. 7. Undoubtedly, petitioner"s application made after 01.04.1999 and before 29.05.2002, the date of commencement of Third Amendment Rule, when rejected on the ground that it did not meet the requirement of Rule 5 i.e., the first proviso of having attained the age of majority within one year from 09.05.2001, the date of death of petitioner"s father, sub Rule (3) of Rule 9 (supra) is inapplicable. Even otherwise, petitioner did not attain the age of majority on the coming into force of Third Amendment Rules i.e., as on 29.05.2002, having attained majority only on 18.10.2003. 8. The facts in Manjunath M. Lala Sangi"s Case were that, he was born on 30.03.1982 and was a minor when his father died on 08.01.1999 and made an application for compassionate appointment on 10.09.1999 which was rejected on the ground of having not completed 18 years, hence disentitled to appointment in terms of the Rules. Though petitioner on attaining majority on 30.03.2000 made another application on 17.05.2000 for appointment on compassionate ground, was rejected by communication dated 19.09.2000 on the ground that it was not submitted within the period prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules and there was no reason to condone the delay. In the factual context that the application filed on 17.05.2000, the petitioner therein had attained the age of majority much before the coming into force of the Third Amendment Rules as on 29.05.2002, coupled with the fact that father of the petitioner therein had died on 08.01.1999 i.e., before 01.04.1999 in Rule 9(3) of the Rules, the Division Bench of this Court quashed the rejection of the application and directed reconsideration. Facts of that case not being similar, that order Annexure-Q, does not aid the case of the petitioner. 9. Facts of that case not being similar, that order Annexure-Q, does not aid the case of the petitioner. 9. In K.M. Prakash vs. State of Karnataka ILR 2007 KAR 3108, a Division Bench of this Court, having regard to the well established principles laid down by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that the provision for appointment on compassionate grounds 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, made by way of an exception to the General Rule cannot subsume the main principle and accordingly observed that there cannot be any reservation of the vacancy indefinitely till such time the minor attained majority after a lapse of several years and therefore, the provisions made prescribing the period of one year within which the applicant ought to have attained majority from the date of death of the employee cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal. 10. The claim for reconsideration of the petitioner"s application dated 06.04.2004 Annexure-C in my considered opinion was justifiably rejected by communications, Annexures-N and P. In the light of what is noticed supra and in the facts and circumstances of the case, petition without merit is rejected.