ORDER : H.G.RAMESH, J. 1. Heard. Perused the record. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.09.2018 whereby the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal has rejected the petitioner’s application. The case of the petitioner is that Rule 9(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (‘the Rules’) is unconstitutional. Rule 9(1) of the Rules reads as follows: “9. Provision for Ex-servicemen and physically handicapped.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post, if in such rules of recruitment direct recruitment is prescribed as one of the methods of recruitment, ten per cent of the vacancies set apart for that method in each of the categories of general merit, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and in each of the categories among other backward classes shall be reserved for, and shall be filled by direct recruitment from among ex-servicemen and members of the families of persons who, while serving in the Armed Forces of the Union, were either killed or permanently disabled. Explanation.—For the purpose of this subrule “members of the family” means the wife or husband, as the case may be, and children and step children wholly dependent on the person who served in the Armed Forces of the Union.” (Emphasis supplied) 2. The Tribunal has rejected the petitioner’s application with the following reasoning: “6. Admittedly, the applicant’s father was discharged from military on 10.05.1996 as per Annexure-A5 dated 05.08.1997 and he died on 27.01.1997. It is also to be noted that the applicant’s father was suffering from ….….. and hence he was discharged under Rule 13 (3) III (iii) of Army Rules as per the pleadings of the applicant himself. Reservation is a policy matter of the Government. The Government in its wisdom has made reservation for the family members of the Ex-servicemen who were killed or permanently disabled while serving in the Armed Force. Such reservation is provided under Rule 9 of the G.R. Rules 1977, based on which the impugned Notification dated 22.06.2017 has been issued. There is a difference between the person who is discharged from the Armed Force based on the fact that he was suffering from ……… and the person who was killed or permanently disabled while in service. Such reservation is provided under Rule 9 of the G.R. Rules 1977, based on which the impugned Notification dated 22.06.2017 has been issued. There is a difference between the person who is discharged from the Armed Force based on the fact that he was suffering from ……… and the person who was killed or permanently disabled while in service. We do not see any discrimination in the differentiation made between the Armed Personnel who were permanently disabled or killed while in service on one hand and the person who was discharged on the reason of suffering from ………. In our view, such differentiation is based on (an) intelligible differentia and hence there is no violation of any of the Articles of the Constitution as contended in the application.” (Underlining supplied) 3. We find no error in the aforesaid reasoning of the Tribunal. In our opinion, Rule 9(1) of the Rules does not offend any of the provisions of the Constitution. Petition dismissed.