JUDGMENT : B.Veerappa, J. The appellant/wife of late Shivasharanappa Shirvale who is unsuccessful in her attempt on four occasions has filed the present intra court appeal against the order dated 03.04.2018 passed in W.P.No.102626/2013 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 2. It is the case of the appellant that she is the legally wedded wife of late Shivasharanappa Shirwale who was working with the second respondent-college. He died on 06.06.1997 leaving behind the appellant/wife and other legal representatives. Due to unemployment and having no other source of income, to meet the day-to-day necessities, the appellant filed an application before the second respondent on 20.06.1997 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Her application was not considered by the management. Therefore, she was constrained to file W.P.No.7300/2003 before this Court seeking direction to the respondents to appoint her to any suitable post with respondent No.2. The learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 16.06.2006 directed the first respondent therein, Joint Director of Public Instructions to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. 3. The learned Single Judge has also mentioned about the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.565/1997 and O.S.No.336/1999 for injunction restraining the management from appointing respondent No.4 herein. The third respondent considering the direction issued by this Court, rejected the application of the petitioner on 30.12.2006 on the ground that "vacant and unapproved posts of non-teaching staff as on 01.03.2001 shall be permanently unaided. Any vacancies in the non-teaching posts which has arisen after 01.03.2001 on account of retirement, resignation, removal, dismissal and death etc., are to remain permanently unaided. Such vacancies which are unaided shall be filled by the management and salary and other allowances shall be paid from its own resources". The said endorsement was the subject matter of the writ petition filed by the very petitioner/appellant before this Court in W.P.No.4707/2007. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the fourth respondent herein/son of the first wife of late Shivasharanappa Shirvale also filed Misc.W.No.80774/2011 for impleading. 4. The said endorsement was the subject matter of the writ petition filed by the very petitioner/appellant before this Court in W.P.No.4707/2007. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the fourth respondent herein/son of the first wife of late Shivasharanappa Shirvale also filed Misc.W.No.80774/2011 for impleading. 4. The learned Single Judge by considering the entire material on record, by the order dated 19.08.2011 recorded a finding that the endorsement issued is unilateral, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the endorsement impugned therein came to be set aside permitting the appellant/petitioner to submit her application to second respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. In turn, the second respondent-management was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, either personally or through her counsel and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of application to be submitted by the appellant/petitioner. In view of the said order, miscellaneous petition filed by the fourth respondent was dismissed as not survive for consideration. The said order passed by this Court has reached finality. 5. Thereafter, the second respondent considering the directions issued by this Court as stated supra, by an endorsement dated 16.06.2012 (Annexure-L) rejected the claim of the appellant/petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds mainly on the ground that fourth respondent also filed an application within one year. It is also observed in the said endorsement that in terms of the rules of the management, fourth respondent is appointed and the same has been sent for approval of the Joint Director, Collegiate Education. It is further observed therein that the petitioner has obtained pension and gratuity amount stating that she is uneducated and later she has produced fourth standard false pass certificate claiming appointment which was referred to Regional Commissioner, Gulbarga, for verification and the Regional Commissioner has submitted report to the effect that it is a false certificate. On these grounds, second respondent rejected the claim of the appellant/petitioner. 6. The above endorsement was the subject matter of W.P.No.82726/2012 filed by the petitioner before this Court. On these grounds, second respondent rejected the claim of the appellant/petitioner. 6. The above endorsement was the subject matter of W.P.No.82726/2012 filed by the petitioner before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court by the order dated 12.02.2013 allowed the writ petition and set aside the endorsement dated 16.06.2012 mainly on the ground that the respondents have not heard the appellant/petitioner before passing the order and directed the respondents to hear the appellant/petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and also directed the second respondent-management not to approve the appointment of the fourth respondent herein for the post for which the appellant/petitioner is claming and if he has already been appointed, his services shall be terminated forthwith as in the earlier proceedings, it has been held more than once that he is not entitled for such appointment. 7. The said finding recorded by this Court was not at all challenged by the fourth respondent though he was represented by the learned counsel. The said finding recorded by this Court as per Annexure-M has reached finality. Thereafter, the management appointed the Advocate to enquire into the application submitted by the appellant/petitioner with regard to her certificate. The Advocate who was appointed for conducting enquiry has submitted report dated 09.06.2013 as per Annexure-N stating that "after going through all the documents submitted by the Principal of College, the report of Head Master Government Model School, Savalagi shows that Smt. Mallamma W/o Late Shivasharanappa Sirval has manipulated the documents for getting appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, on perusing all the documents, I found discrepancies and anomalies in Smt. Mallamma's claim for appointment on compassionate ground". The said report was not challenged by the present appellant/wife before any authorities. 8. On the basis of the report submitted by the Advocate who was appointed, the management issued Annexure-S endorsement dated 04.08.2013 rejecting the claim of the appellant/petitioner holding that fourth respondent being a degree holder is eligible for appointment and he has already been appointed as Attender and the same is sent for approval. The same is the subject matter of writ petition in W.P.No.102626/2013 before the learned Single Judge. The same is the subject matter of writ petition in W.P.No.102626/2013 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 03.04.2018 dismissed the writ petition holding that both wife and son who are aged about 50 years and 48 years respectively are not entitled for compassionate appointments as their service is only three years and five years. The said finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is not challenged by the fourth respondent. The present writ appeal is filed by the appellant/wife challenging the said order. 9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis. 10. Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the second respondent management as well as the learned Single Judge is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He would further contend that the impugned order is an outcome of misreading or non-appreciation of material available on record. The learned Single Judge without looking into the earlier decisions of this Court held that appointment of fourth respondent on compassionate grounds cannot be considered and the endorsement issued to the appellant which is subject matter of challenge is mere repetition of endorsement which was issued earlier and absolutely, no reasons are assigned by the second respondent or learned Single Judge while dismissing the application or the writ petition. He would further contend that the appellant has been harassed by the management for the last twenty years by issuing endorsements with a reasoning which is already being considered by the lawful orders of this Court. Therefore he sought to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the second respondent-management refusing to appoint. 11. Per contra, Sri A.M.Nagral, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 13. The appellant who is unsuccessful on four occasions in getting appointment on compassionate grounds is before this Court. It is her specific case that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Shivasharanappa Shirwale who was working as Attender at the second respondent's office. 13. The appellant who is unsuccessful on four occasions in getting appointment on compassionate grounds is before this Court. It is her specific case that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Shivasharanappa Shirwale who was working as Attender at the second respondent's office. He died in service on 06.06.1997. She filed an application on 20.06.1997 within the time stipulated under the relevant rules prevailing at the relevant point of time. Her entire case is, though she is getting pension of her husband, she is entitled to get appointment on compassionate grounds. Series of endorsements issued by the second respondent or first respondent on four occasions and writ petitions filed on three occasions have not decided the rights of either the appellant or fourth respondent. Though the writ petitions filed by the petitioner on earlier three occasions were allowed, it is nowhere recorded any finding with regard to the entitlement except directing the second respondent or first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner (Appellant). By this process, twenty one years have been lapsed from the date of death of husband of the appellant. The fourth respondent who claims to be the son of first wife of deceased Shivasharanappa Shirwale filed W.P.No.80508/2010 before this Court seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his application for appointment. 14. This Court by the order dated 18.02.2010 directed the management to consider the name of the fourth respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds in conformity with the rules and regulations which govern such appointment within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Thereafter, by the impugned endorsement dated 04.08.2013, management appointed fourth respondent and recommended for approval. The learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.82726/2012 dated 12.02.2013 has directed the second respondent not to approve the appointment of fourth respondent for the post for which the petitioner is claiming and if he has already been appointed, his services (fourth respondent) shall be terminated forthwith as in the earlier proceedings, it has been held more than once that he is not entitled for such appointment. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court has reached finality as the same is not challenged. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court has reached finality as the same is not challenged. It is also relevant to state at this stage that Commissioner, Collegiate Education has issued an endorsement dated 25.11.2010 to the fourth respondent wherein it is specifically stated that as per the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, the dependent of the 'Government Servant' means widow, son and unmarried daughter who were dependent upon him and were living with him. 15. In the said endorsement, it is also stated as under: "Further in the rules, eligibility for appointment is described as follows: Appointment under these rules shall be restricted to the dependent of a deceased Government servant in the following order of preference namely:- (a) Widow; (b) A son, if widow is not eligible or for any valid reason is not willing to accept the appointment. In your case, your father's 2nd wife Smt. Mallamma (who should be considered as legally wedded wife) has to be considered first for appointment on compassionate grounds. Since the rejection of her application for compassionate appointment by this office vide Endorsement No.P E/33/C /U /S P /2000-01 dated 30th December 2006 which has been questioned by Smt. Mallamma in W.P.No.4707/2007 which is still pending, your application for appointment cannot be considered unless her issue is settled by the Hon'ble High Court." The said endorsement was also not challenged by the fourth respondent. 16. As could be seen from the records, the report dated 09.06.2013 submitted by the Advocate who was appointed by the management clearly depicts that the present appellant has manipulated the documents for getting appointment on compassionate grounds. The documents produced by her were found with discrepancies and anomalies. The said report has also reached finality. 17. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased-employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to the death of bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Admittedly, in the present case, fight between the present appellant who is claming to be second wife of the deceased and fourth respondent who is the son of the first wife of late Shivasharanappa Shirvale has been dragged till today i.e., for more than 21 year 6 months have been lapsed. Admittedly, in the present case, fight between the present appellant who is claming to be second wife of the deceased and fourth respondent who is the son of the first wife of late Shivasharanappa Shirvale has been dragged till today i.e., for more than 21 year 6 months have been lapsed. Therefore, the very concept of compassionate appointment has been diluted by lapse of time and the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right and appointment shall not be given as a matter of course. Our view is fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others, (2000) 7 SCC 192 wherein it has held as under: "3. We are unable to agree with submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2.6.1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief." 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions governing the appointment on compassionate grounds, in the case of Auditor General of India and others vs. G.Ananta Rajeswara Rao, (1994) AIR SC 1521 has held as under: "5. A reading of these various clauses in the memorandum discloses that the appointment on compassionate grounds would not only be to a son, daughter or widow but also to a near relative which was vague or undefined. A person who dies in harness and whose members of the family need immediate relief of providing appointment to relieve economic distress from the loss of the bread-winner of the family need compassionate treatment. A person who dies in harness and whose members of the family need immediate relief of providing appointment to relieve economic distress from the loss of the bread-winner of the family need compassionate treatment. But all possible eventualities have been enumerated to become a rule to avoid regular recruitment. It would appear that these enumerated eventualities would be breeding ground for misuse of appointments by compassionate grounds. Articles 16(3) to 16(5) provided exceptions. Further exception must be on constitutionally valid and permissible grounds. Therefore, the High Court is right in holding that the appointment on grounds of descent clearly violates Art. 16(2) of the Constitution. But, however, it is made clear that if the appointments are confined to the son/daughter or widow of the deceased Government employee who died in harness and who needs immediate appointment on grounds of immediate need of assistance in the event of there being no other earning member in the family to supplement the loss of income from the bread winner to relieve the economic distress of the members of the family, it is unexceptionable. But in other cases it cannot be a rule to take advantage of the memorandum to appoint the persons to these posts on the ground of compassion. Accordingly, we allow the appeal in part and hold that the appointment in Para 1 of the memorandum is upheld and that appointment on compassionate ground to a son, daughter or widow to assist the family to relieve economic distress by sudden demise in harness of Govt. employee is valid. It is not on the ground descent simpliciter, but exceptional circumstance for the ground mentioned. It should be circumscribed with suitable modification by an appropriate amendment to the memorandum limiting to relieve the members of the deceased employee who died in harness, from economic distress. In other respects Art. 16(2) clearly attracted." 19. In view of series of litigation between the parties and rejection of the claim by the institution and the authorities concerned, even after lapse of twenty one years and six months, they have not yet decided either claim of the appellant or fourth respondent on compassionate grounds. Admittedly, the appellant and fourth respondent have survived for more than twenty one years and six months without any immediate threat. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with. 20. Admittedly, the appellant and fourth respondent have survived for more than twenty one years and six months without any immediate threat. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with. 20. The learned Single Judge considering the entire material on record by the impugned order has recorded as under: "3. Admittedly, all the aforesaid writ petitions are either dismissed or disposed off with a direction to consider if any right is available to them, thereby meaning that there is no subsisting right, vested in them to seek direction to any of the respondents in all these writ petitions. In this order, the present petition is one more writ petition, which is now filed by wife in which the son of the deceased is 4th respondent. When the cause title of this writ petition, which is filed on 13.08.2013 is seen, the wife is aged about 50 years and the son is aged about 48 years. 4. At this juncture, even assuming that they establish any semblance of right being with them for their names to be considered for job on compassionate ground, the institution cannot be burdened with these people to be appointed with them to serve a period of 03 or 05 years, thereby causing financial burden to them. This observation is in the light of submission made by the learned counsel Sri. Amaresh S. Roja, appearing for the 2nd respondent- College that the government has already removed the facility of providing aid to nonteaching staff to the said institution." 21. It is also not in dispute that the present appellant who claims to be the second wife of late Shivasharanappa Shirvale is getting family pension and has received other benefits on the death of her husband. 22. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of the power vested under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.