ORDER : Petitioner’s father was working as a driver in the office of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. He died on 14th April 2014, while in service. On 19th June 2014, petitioner submitted his application in the prescribed form to the District Judge, Mangaluru seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The same has been rejected. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Shri. Rajashekar learned Advocate for petitioner urged following contentions: As per explanation to Rule 4 of Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short ‘1996 Rules’) a Government Servant shall be considered to be in financial crisis or destitution if the recurring monthly income of the family from all sources is less than the average emoluments of maximum and minimum scale of pay of the post of First Division Assistant as on the date of making application for compassionate appointment; definition of ‘Family’ in 1996 Rules means his or her spouse and their son, unmarried daughter and widowed daughter who are living with deceased Government Servant and as per Rule 2(1)(b), family includes only persons who are living with the deceased Government Servant; respondents could not have taken into consideration the salary of petitioner’s elder brother who is serving in Navy as Lt. Commander and petitioner’s income of Rs.15,000/during the year 2015 based on petitioner’s affidavit; that income of petitioner’s brother working as Lt. Commander could not have been included while calculating the family income because, he was not living with the deceased Government Servant; 3. Thus in substance, it was contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the total income of family is less than average emoluments of a first division assistant and therefore, petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. Smt. Nagashree learned AGA opposing the petition submitted that petitioner’s mother was working as First Division Assistant in Women and Child Department. Petitioner’s brother is a Lt. Commander in Indian Navy. Petitioner’s mother has furnished an ‘Income Certificate’ issued by the Deputy Tahasildar, Suratkal Hobli, certifying that the annual income of the family is Rs.18,35,000/from all sources. Petitioner has also filed an Affidavit stating that he was working as an electrician and his annual income was Rs.15,000/. Petitioner’s mother was earning Rs. 4,03,800/per annum as on June 2015. Petitioner’s brother was getting a salary of Rs.14,30,940/per annum (Rs.1,19,245/per month). Petitioner has also filed an Affidavit stating that he was working as an electrician and his annual income was Rs.15,000/. Petitioner’s mother was earning Rs. 4,03,800/per annum as on June 2015. Petitioner’s brother was getting a salary of Rs.14,30,940/per annum (Rs.1,19,245/per month). Therefore, petitioner’s family cannot be considered to be in destitution as defined in the explanation to Rule 4. 5. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. 6. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 7. Principal contention urged by learned Advocate for petitioner is that as on the date of making the application, the family income was less than the average emoluments of the First Division Assistant. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for a job on compassionate ground. 8. It is not in dispute that as on the date of submitting application, petitioner’s mother was working as First Division Assistant in Women and Child Department. She has submitted a representation on 21st July 2014 requesting to provide a job to petitioner on compassionate grounds. The said representation does not contain a whisper about her elder son. Rule 4(b) requires that the monthly income from all sources other than family pension, lump sum pensionary benefits and the interest earned thereon shall be computed. It is not in dispute that petitioner’s elder brother was serving in Navy as Lt. Commander with a gross salary of Rs.14,30,940/. 9. Petitioner’s mother has furnished Income Certificate issued by the Deputy Tahasildar which shows that the family income from all sources was Rs.18,35,000/per annum. 10. Learned Advocate for petitioner strenuously contended that petitioner’s brother was not living with the deceased and therefore, his income cannot be considered. 11. It is fairly well settled that scheme for compassionate appointment is an exception and care must be taken to see that such exception to the general provision does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment against posts which could have been available but for provisions enabling appointments on compassionate grounds See (Director of Education (Secondary) and Another Vs. Pushpendra Kumar and Others, (1998)5 SCC 192 12. In Umesh Kuma Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, (1994)4 SCC 138 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that as a Rule in Public Service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Pushpendra Kumar and Others, (1998)5 SCC 192 12. In Umesh Kuma Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, (1994)4 SCC 138 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that as a Rule in Public Service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception keeping in view the fact of death of employee, while in service, leaving his family without any means of livelihood. 13. In State of J & K and Others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006)5 SCC 766 it is held as follows: “11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought ‘compassion’, the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say ‘goodbye’ to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interest of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.” (Emphasis Supplied) 14. Learned Advocate for petitioner also strenuously contended that petitioner’s case ought to have been considered strictly keeping in view the income as on the date of filing the application, whereas respondents have considered the Income Certificate issued in the year 2015 and petitioner’s Affidavit stating that he was earning Rs.15,000/per annum which is also submitted in the year 2015. He also relied on paragraph No.35 in the case of Nair Service Society Vs. Dr.T.Beermasthan and others, (2009) 5 SCC 545 and contended that service jurisprudence should be understood with particular Rules in the State governing that field. 15. He also relied on paragraph No.35 in the case of Nair Service Society Vs. Dr.T.Beermasthan and others, (2009) 5 SCC 545 and contended that service jurisprudence should be understood with particular Rules in the State governing that field. 15. Petitioner has written a letter dated 4th March 2016 (Annexure–P) to the District Judge, Mangaluru stating that as on 14th April 2014, the date of death of his father, petitioner’s mother was getting salary of Rs.31,004/which is Rs.590/less than Rs.31,594/. In substance, petitioner has stated in his letter that as per Rule 4 his mother’s salary was less by Rs. 590/and therefore, the family was in financial crisis. 16. As held in Sajjad Ahmed Mir’s case, once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say ‘Good Bye’ to normal Rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of Constitution. 17. The Family Income Certificate issued in August 2015, is Rs.18,35,000/. The said Certificate has been issued 14 months after the date of application. Petitioner’s Affidavit that he was earning Rs.15,000/is also given on 21st July 2015. The argument that petitioner’s family must be considered as in ‘financial crisis’ though petitioner’s mother was earning salary of Rs.31,004/is hypertechnical because if the salary of petitioner’s mother was Rs.31,594/, petitioner’s family could not have been considered as one in financial crisis. I say so because, the Family Income Certificate produced by petitioner’s mother herself shows an income of Rs.18,35,000/per annum and it weighs heavily against petitioner’s contention. 18. Resultantly, this petition must fail and it is accordingly dismissed.