ORDER : The petitioner has challenged the legality of the endorsement dated 20.4.2016, whereby the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Assistant Metropolitan Commissioner, Bengaluru Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (‘Authority’ for short). The petitioner has also challenged the resolution dated 21.1.2017, passed by the Authority, whereby the Board has rejected the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment. The petitioner has also sought the relief from this Court to direct the respondents to consider his representation dated 12.11.2007/13.11.2007, and to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 12.9.1989, the petitioner’s father, Mr. K.G. Narasimha Raju, was appointed as Group-D employee with the Authority. Subsequently, on 28.1.1994, his services were regularized. During the course of his service, Mr. Narasimha Raju expired on 1.5.2007, leaving behind the petitioner, another son and his wife. Immediately after the death of his father, on 12.11.2007/13.11.2007, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Metropolitan Commissioner, the respondent No.1, for seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Since the said representation did not elicit any response, on 23.6.2008, and on 25.9.2009, the petitioner submitted two more representations before the respondent No.1. For the next five years, the petitioner kept mum over his appointment on compassionate ground. According to the petitioner, on 5.8.2014, the respondent No.1 passed an order in which reference has been made for the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground. According to the order, the petitioner’s case would be considered in accordance with the provisions of law. After considering the petitioner’s case, by endorsement dated 20.4.2016, the petitioner’s request was rejected by the Assistant Metropolitan Commissioner, the respondent No.2. However, despite the rejection of the petitioner’s prayer, the respondent No.1 wrote a letter on 24.8.2016, to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel Administration, for seeking a declaration regarding the petitioner’s appointment. However, the Additional Secretary informed the respondent No.1 that it is for the Board to take a decision with regard to the petitioner’s appointment. Consequently, in its meeting dated 21.1.2017, the Board has taken a decision to reject the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment. On 16.2.2017, the respondent No.2 has issued a endorsement to the petitioner clearly stating that his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the Board. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Consequently, in its meeting dated 21.1.2017, the Board has taken a decision to reject the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment. On 16.2.2017, the respondent No.2 has issued a endorsement to the petitioner clearly stating that his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the Board. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. R.B. Sadasivappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had filed his application for compassionate appointment immediately after his father’s death. Secondly, the petitioner is already appointed as Group-D employee on outsourced basis, and is working with the Bengaluru Metropolitan Regional Development Authority. Therefore, there is no reason why the petitioner’s plea for compassionate appointment should be rejected by the respondent Authority. Therefore, according to him, the endorsement dated 20.4.2016, and the Board decision dated 21.1.2017, deserve to be set aside by this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel, perused the impugned endorsement and the impugned resolution. 5. It is, indeed, trite to state that an appointment on compassionate ground is by way of exception to a regular appointment. An exception has been made in order to ensure that a family, who has suddenly lost its bread earner, is protected from any financial crisis. Therefore, the plea for being appointed on compassionate ground cannot be entertained after number of years have flown by. 6. Moreover, a bare perusal of the resolution dated 21.1.2017, and the endorsement dated 20.4.2016, clearly reveal that the respondents have denied the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the Authority did not adopt the Government Rules regarding appointment on compassionate ground till 2012. Therefore, the Rules were not available, and were not applicable in the year 2007, when the petitioner’s father suddenly expired. Hence, the benefit of the Rules cannot be given retrospectively, but can be extended prospectively. The logic given by the respondents cannot be faulted. 7. Furthermore, according to the petitioner, he is working with the Authority, although on outsource basis. Apparently, the petitioner’s family is not facing any financial crisis due to the sudden death of the petitioner’s father. In fact, the petitioner’s family has survived over a decade after the sudden demise of his father. Therefore, the question of giving an appointment on compassionate ground does not even arise after a decade. 8. Apparently, the petitioner’s family is not facing any financial crisis due to the sudden death of the petitioner’s father. In fact, the petitioner’s family has survived over a decade after the sudden demise of his father. Therefore, the question of giving an appointment on compassionate ground does not even arise after a decade. 8. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned endorsement and the impugned resolution. Since the petition is devoid of merits, it is hereby, dismissed. No order as to cost.