ORDER : The legality and correctness of order dated 08.12.2017 passed in Application No.2240/2014 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for the sake of convenience) is assailed by the Block Education Officer, Mundaragi, Gadag District and two other officers of the Department of Public Instruction. 2. We have heard learned Additional Government Advocate at length and perused the material on record. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the first respondent herein is the mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3. That one Biddadeppa Budihal was working as Head Master of Government Higher Primary School at Jentil Shirur, Mundaragi Taluk of Gadag district. He died in harness on 27.10.2007 leaving behind him his wife and eight children inclusive of respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. The widow of Sri Budihal, first respondent herein had submitted an application dated 21.07.2008 to the Block Education Officer, Mundaragi, requesting for providing an appointment to her son, second respondent herein on compassionate ground. As on the date when the said application was filed, the said son was aged about 16 years three months, on 19.01.2009, an endorsement was issued by the Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Gadag District to the second petitioner herein stating that the application filed by her seeking appointment on compassionate ground for her son was not maintainable as he had not attained the age of 18 years. On receipt of the said endorsement, the first respondent submitted another representation to the third petitioner namely Commissioner, Department of Public Instruction, Dharwad dated 20.02.2009 stating that she has eight children and out of them, three daughters had married and a son had also married and living separately by taking his share in the property. That she was residing with four other children and she was not having good health. Therefore, she had sought for appointment to her second son, second respondent herein even though he had not completed 18 years of age. In response, one more endorsement dated 04.03.2009 was issued to the first respondent herein stating that the application filed on behalf of her son had been rejected as he has not attained the age of 18 years. Therefore, she had sought for appointment to her second son, second respondent herein even though he had not completed 18 years of age. In response, one more endorsement dated 04.03.2009 was issued to the first respondent herein stating that the application filed on behalf of her son had been rejected as he has not attained the age of 18 years. Subsequently, the first respondent herein had submitted one more representation and one more endorsement dated 05.08.2010 was issued stating that no compassionate appointment could be given to her son as he was minor and that he had not filed the application within one year from the date of the death of his father. Another endorsement was issued on 10.09.2010. 4. Subsequently, the first respondent widow of Sri Budihal submitted another representation dated 11.11.2011 addressed to the first petitioner herein seeking appointment to her son or to her daughter Kumari Rajeshwari third respondent herein. On that, a recommendation was made on 27.08.2018 by the first petitioner to the third petitioner herein that appointment could be given to her daughter as the earlier application was filed within one year from the date of death of her husband. On 19.11.2012, the third petitioner herein addressed a letter to the Regional Commissioner, Belagavi division, Belagavi to verify the proposal. However, on 23.11.2013, another endorsement was issued to the third respondent stating that the said application was not filed within one year from the date of death of her father and hence no appointment could be given to her. Being aggrieved by the said endorsements, the widow of Sri Budihal filed an application before the Tribunal. Later, the son and daughter of Sri Budihal impleaded themselves in the said matter. 5. The Tribunal after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and on considering the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) which stood amended with effect from 24.11.2000, has allowed the said application and quashed the endorsements dated 23.11.2013 and 02.12.2013 and directed that an appointment order be issued to the third respondent herein within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 6. We have heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 6. We have heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners. 7. At the outset, she submitted that appointment on compassionate basis is not a matter of right. It is an exception to recruitment and therefore must be construed strictly in terms of the Rules which apply. No doubt, in the instant case, Sri Budihal died while in service but the provision of appointment on compassionate basis has to be strictly in accordance with the Rules. In the instant case, although the second respondent son’s appointment was sought by the first respondent herein, in accordance with the period prescribed under Rule 5, since he was a minor and he did not attain the age of majority within a period of one year from the date of death of Sri Budihal who died on 27.10.2007, his case was not considered as he was ineligible to be appointed on compassionate basis. She further submitted that the widow of Sri Budihal did not apply and initially there was no application made on behalf of the third respondent, unmarried daughter of Sri Budihal. That the third respondent herein made the application belatedly on 11.11.2011 whereas such an application for compassionate appointment should have been made within one year from the date of death of Sri Budihal i.e. on 27.10.2007. Therefore, the petitioners were justified in issuing Annexures-A11 and 12 endorsements and that the Tribunal ought not to have quashed the same. She further contended that if the applications were to be made long after the death of the Government servant seeking appointment on compassionate ground, the purpose itself would not be served as the object and purpose of granting appointment on compassionate basis is to assist the family which is in hardship on account of the sudden death of the bread earner. In the instant case, the family has survived all these years which implies that they are not in need of compassionate appointment. The Tribunal could not have construed the application filed by the third respondent as a continuation of the application filed by the second respondent whose application could not be considered as he was ineligible for appointment. She submitted that the order of the Tribunal may be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed after issuance of notice to the respondents. 8. She submitted that the order of the Tribunal may be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed after issuance of notice to the respondents. 8. Having heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners and on perusal of the material on record, we note that the facts in this case are not in dispute. Sri Budihal who was working as Head Master of Government Higher Primary School at Jentil Shirur, Mundaragi Taluk of Gadag district, died while in service on 27.10.2007 leaving behind his widow and eight children. Initially, an application was made within the period prescribed under Rule 5 i.e. within one year from the date of death of Sri Budihal by the second respondent/son. As per first proviso to Rule 5, the second respondent-minor son had not attained 18 years within one year from the date of death of Government servant. Even though his application was filed within one year, the same could not be considered as he was ineligible because he was only 16 years and 3 months when he made the application. Thereafter, the daughter made an application on 11.11.2011 seeking appointment on compassionate basis. The same has been rejected by endorsements at AnnexuresA11 and A12 and dated 23.11.2013 and 02.12.2013 respectively. 9. Having heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners, the following point would arise for our consideration: “Whether the Tribunal was right in construing that the application filed by third respondent, unmarried daughter of Sri Budihal on 11.11.2011 as a continuation of the original application filed on behalf of the second respondent/son of Sri Budihal?” 10. Before considering the arguments made by learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners, it would be useful to refer to a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 16.01.2019 in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Shashikumar in Civil Appeal No.988/2019 wherein Hon’ble Dr. Chandrachud J. has observed that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general Rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the state has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Dependants of a deceased employee of the state are eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment. Dependants of a deceased employee of the state are eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment. The basis of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. It is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. The terms on which such applications would be considered are subject to the policy which is framed by the State and must fulfill the terms of the policy and there is no right to compassionate appointment. But where there is a policy, a dependant member of the family of a deceased employee is entitled to apply for compassionate appointment and to seek consideration of the application in accordance with the terms and conditions which are prescribed by the State. 11. In the instant case, the appointment on compassionate ground is in the form of the Rules. Therefore, the Rules applicable shall be considered at this stage. Under the Rules, the expression ‘dependent of a deceased Government Servant’ is defined in Rule 2(1)(a) that is, in case of male Government Servant, his widow, son, unmarried daughter who were dependant upon him and were living with him. The definition of ‘family’ in Rule 2(b) in relation to a deceased Government Servant means his or her spouse and the son, unmarried daughter and widowed daughter, unmarried brother or unmarried sister who were living with him. The eligibility for appointment on compassionate ground is stated in Rule 3 which reads as under: 3. Eligibility for appointment:- (1) Appointment on compassionate grounds under these rules shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a matter of course. The eligibility for appointment on compassionate ground is stated in Rule 3 which reads as under: 3. Eligibility for appointment:- (1) Appointment on compassionate grounds under these rules shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a matter of course. (2) Appointment under these rules shall be restricted to the dependant of a deceased Government servant in the following order of preference, namely:- (i) in the case of the deceased male Government servant:- (a) the widow; (b) a son, if widow is not eligible or for any valid reason she is not willing to accept the appointment; (c) an unmarried daughter, if the widow and son are not eligible or for any valid reason they are not willing to accept the appointment; (d) a widowed daughter, if the widow, son and unmarried daughter are not eligible or for any valid reason they are not willing to accept the appointment; (ii) in the case of the deceased female Government servant:- (a) a son; (b) an unmarried daughter, if the son is not eligible or for any valid reason he is not willing to accept the appointment; (c) the widower, if the son and daughter are not eligible or for any valid reason they are not willing to accept the appointment; (3) An adopted son or daughter of a deceased Government servant shall not be eligible for appointment under these Rules. (4) A person against whom at the time of making application a criminal case is under investigation or trial, on the charge of having committed murder of the deceased Government servant or for abetting the commission of such offence shall not be eligible for appointment under these Rules.” The conditions of appointment on compassionate ground are stated in Rule 4, which reads as under: 4. Conditions of appointment:- Appointment on compassionate grounds under these rules shall be subject to the following conditions, namely.– (1) the family of the deceased Government servant should be in a financial crisis or destitution. Conditions of appointment:- Appointment on compassionate grounds under these rules shall be subject to the following conditions, namely.– (1) the family of the deceased Government servant should be in a financial crisis or destitution. Explanation:-x x x (2) Person seeking appointment shall be within the age limit specified for the post in the relevant rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post read with sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 and where it is not so specified such person shall be within the age limits specified in the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. (3) Persons seeking appointment should possess the minimum qualification specified for the post in the relevant rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post. (4) Appointment shall be confined to any post in Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ depending upon the qualification specified for the post but excluding the posts carrying the pay scales higher than the scale of pay of the post of Assistant in the Karnataka Government Secretariat as may be revised from time to time and any other post in either of the groups as may be specified by the Government from time to time. (5) Appointment shall be made only against a direct recruitment vacancy. (6) Appointment shall be made in the department in which the deceased Government servant was working: Provided that if no vacancy is available in that department subject to any general order that may be issued by the Government, appointment may be made in any other department of the Government where the vacancy is available.” Rule 5 is relevant for the purpose of this case. The same reads as under: “5. The same reads as under: “5. Application for appointment:- Every dependant of a deceased Government servant, seeking appointment under these rules shall make an application within one year from the date of death of the Government servant, in such form, as may be notified by the Government, from time to time, to the Head of the Department under whom the deceased Government servant was working.” On a combined reading of the Rules, it becomes clear that the appointment on compassionate basis to a dependant of a deceased male Government Servant is in the following order of preference; (a) widow (b) a son, if widow is not eligible or for any valid reason, she is not ready to accept the appointment; (c) an unmarried daughter, if the widow and son are not eligible or for any valid reason they are not willing to accept the appointment; (d) the widowed daughter, if the widow, son and unmarried daughter are not willing to accept the appointment. Thus, a specific order of preference has been delineated in the sub rule and the preference has been given first to the widow of the deceased male Government Servant, then to the son, then to an unmarried daughter and lastly, to the widowed daughter. Provided the other persons higher in the order of preference are not wiling to accept the appointment or are not eligible. Therefore, it becomes clear that all persons who are eligible for appointment on compassionate basis cannot simultaneously apply for the said post. It has to be in accordance with the order of preference prescribed under the Rules. If for any valid reason, the widow is not willing to accept the appointment, then she can make a request for her son being appointed. But on consideration of the case of the son, if it is found that he is also not eligible or, even if found eligible, not willing to accept the appointment, then the case of unmarried daughter would have to be considered. If the unmarried daughter is also not eligible or if found eligible, for any reason, not willing to accept the appointment, then the case of the widowed daughter of the deceased male Government Servant has to be considered. Therefore, at the outset, the case of an unmarried daughter or widowed daughter or son cannot be considered. If the unmarried daughter is also not eligible or if found eligible, for any reason, not willing to accept the appointment, then the case of the widowed daughter of the deceased male Government Servant has to be considered. Therefore, at the outset, the case of an unmarried daughter or widowed daughter or son cannot be considered. The application has to be made in terms of the order of preference provided under Clause (i) of sub Rule (2) Rule 3. 12. Further, under Rule 5, every dependant of a deceased Government Servant seeking appointment under the Rules would have to make an application within one year from the date of death of the Government Servant in such form as may be notified by the Government from time to time to the Head of the Department under whom the deceased was working. Therefore, the limitation period prescribed is one year from the date of death of Government Servant. The reason being that the appointment would have to be given immediately having regard to the hardship that would be faced by the family which has lost the bread earner of the family and hence the principle of immediacy as referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is stipulated in Rule 5 Proviso 1. However, in the case of a minor, the minor son must have attained the age of 18 years within one year from the date of death of Government Servant and he must make an application within one year thereafter. The first proviso takes care of a case, where the widow, who is the first in the order of preference is not willing to accept the appointment and instead seeking appointment for her minor son. In such a case, he must have attained the age of 18 years within one year from the date of death of the Government Servant and his application must have been made within one year thereafter. 13. In the instant case, though the application was made on behalf of the minor son/second respondent herein, within a period of one year from the date of death of his father, he had not attained the age of 18 years within one year from the date of death of his father as he was only 16 years and three months when he made the application. Therefore, he was not eligible to be appointed according to the petitioner. Therefore, he was not eligible to be appointed according to the petitioner. His application was rejected. It is only thereafter that the unmarried daughter of the deceased male Government Servant would get an opportunity to seek appointment; until then the unmarried daughter, having regard to the order of preference stipulated in sub clause (i) sub Rule (2) of Rule 3, has no right to apply for compassionate appointment. In the instant case, it is only after the rejection of the second respondent claim for appointment on compassionate basis that the third respondent unmarried daughter of the deceased Sri Budihal could make her application. Therefore, it cannot be said that the application was not filed within one year from the date of death of the deceased Government Servant in the instant case or that she had no right to make such an application within the period of one year stipulated under Rule 5. In fact, her application must be construed to be a continuation of the initial claim made by the family i.e. by the second respondent herein who was a minor and who could not have been considered for appointment as he had not attained 18 years within one year from the date of death of his father. In the circumstances, the petitioners ought to have considered the application of the third respondent as she was eligible for appointment having regard to Rules 3 and 5 of the Rules. 14. The Tribunal has considered the rival submissions and has held that the application of the third respondent was not time barred, it has to be construed as one in continuation of the application filed by her mother initially, and that third respondent had attained majority and was entitled to be so considered. 15. However, having regard to the specific order of preference stipulated in Rule 3 read with Rule 2(i) of the Rules, the petitioners as well as the Department ought to have informed the respondents herein that on the second respondent being ineligible for being appointed on compassionate basis having regard to the proviso to Rule 5, the third respondent who is next in the order of preference, being the unmarried daughter of the deceased Government Servant ought to make her application for being considered for appointment on compassionate basis. In the instant case, there is a lapse on the part of the petitioners in bringing it to the notice of the respondents the order of preference and thereby valuable time has expired in seeking appointment on compassionate basis. Therefore, the petitioners herein were not right in issuing the impugned endorsements and stating that third respondent was not entitled for appointment on compassionate basis. The order of preference prescribed under Rule 3 would inevitably mean that the opportunity to an unmarried daughter would arise only if the widow of the deceased male Government Servant i.e., the mother and son of the deceased i.e., her brother are not eligible for any valid reason or not willing to accept the appointment. Until the said process is completed, the unmarried daughter cannot make an application and by the time, the applications of the widow or the son of the deceased male Government Servant are processed and if the initial applications are in time and on processing of the same, it is found that they are not eligible or for any reason not willing to accept the appointment then in such a case, the right of the unmarried daughter to seek appointment on compassionate basis would have to be considered and it cannot be rejected on the ground that it is belated. Obviously, by the time her right to make application arises from the date of the death of the deceased male Government Servant one year period would have lapsed, as the time would have been taken for processing the applications of the widow or the son of the deceased male Government Servant, as the case may be, and the lapse of period cannot act to the disadvantage to the unmarried daughter. Having regard to the order of preference stipulated in Rule 3 and keeping in mind the interpretation given to the Rules as the said Rules are a measure of social justice, it is held that the Tribunal was right and justified in quashing the endorsements issued by the petitioners and directing the petitioners herein to appoint the third respondent herein, Kumari Rajeshwari on compassionate basis within a period of three months from the date of the said order i.e., on 08.12.2017. We find no merit in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed. We find no merit in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed and the period is now extended to three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 16. Before parting, we wish to observe that the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Karnataka, must take steps to inform all Heads of Departments who are concerned that the consideration of applications on compassionate basis to intimate the family which applies for appointment on compassionate basis, that even if the widow or son are ineligible or not willing to take such appointment, then the unmarried daughter and thereafter the widowed daughter of the male Government Servant are also entitled to appointment on compassionate basis. 17. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, all pending applications stand dismissed.