JUDGMENT Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. - The captioned writ petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order bearing No.24042/Dma/53/Corporation/2017-18 dated Nil-07.2019 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-P and also writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of First Division Assistant with effect from the date of initial appointment with continuity of service in the light of the order passed in the writ petition before Principal Bench in W.P.No.43104/2001 decided on 27.11.2011 and W.P.No.32634/2003 decided on 14.06.2006 vide Annexures-F and G respectively. 2. The brief facts of the top noted writ petition are as under: The petitioner was appointed as Second Division Assistant on compassionate ground vide order dated 16.02.2000. The petitioner submitted representation by contending that as on the date of submitting application on 21.07.1999, the petitioner had acquired degree in Bachelor of Science, however, he was appointed as Second Division Assistant. While giving appointment, the qualification was overlooked. Accordingly, a representation was submitted by the present petitioner on 03.12.2013 requesting the respondents to appoint him as First Division Assistant with all benefits. 3. The petitioner has specifically contended in para 4 of the writ petition that, one H.N.Guruprasad had approached this Court in W.P.No.43104/2001 raising identical issue before this Court. This Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the case of the above said petitioner for appointment as First Division Assistant. The order of the learned single Judge was taken in appeal by the respondents in W.A.No.6020/2006. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal. Pursuant to dismissal of the said appeal, the said H.N.Guruprasad was appointed as First Division Assistant with continuity of service. The said order is placed on record before this Court as per Annexure-H. 4. Pursuant to representation, respondent No.1 issued an order dated 02/07.08.2014 addressed to respondent No.2 and thereby rejected the request of the petitioner stating that there is no provision under Rule 6(4) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short, the Rules') to change the cadre once the appointment is made and accordingly, returned the proposal. The said order is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-K. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement issued by respondent No.1, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.105168/2016. The said order is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-K. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement issued by respondent No.1, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.105168/2016. This Court by taking judicial note of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.32634/2003 set aside the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-K. This Court allowed the writ petition and directed respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 03.12.2013 in the light of the order passed in W.P.No.32634/2003 and also to consider consequential Government Order dated 07.11.2009 wherein respondents have appointed Sri.H.N.Guruprasad as First Division Assistant. This Court directed the petitioner to submit one more representation along with copy of the order passed in W.P.No.32634/2003 and also Government Order dated 07.11.2009. 5. The petitioner pursuant to disposal of the writ petition by this Court as per Annexure-L submitted a detailed representation and furnished the order passed in W.P.No.32634/2003 and also Government Order dated 07.11.2009. This Court had directed respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of fresh representation. Since the respondents failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court as per Annexure-L, the petitioner was compelled to initiate contempt proceedings in CCC No.100035/2019. The respondents on receipt of notice made a submission that they would comply the order of the learned single Judge within 10 days. The Division Bench of this Court taking note of submission on record dropped the contempt proceedings, in view of undertaking given by learned Government Advocate. 6. Respondent No.1 having given an undertaking again rejected the representation by issuing the impugned order as per Annexure-P. Respondent No.1 has again rejected the claim of the petitioner herein by applying the provisions of Rule 6(4) of the Rules which was in fact rightly quashed by this Court as per Annexure-L. Hence, the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the impugned order is palpably erroneous, contrary to judgment passed in H.N.Guruprasad's case and the same is tainted with malafides and is also contrary to undertaking given by respondent No.1 in contempt proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the reasons assigned by respondent No.1 in threadbear. Learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the reasons assigned by respondent No.1 in threadbear. He would take this Court to para 3 of the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-P and would submit to this Court that reasons assigned at Sl.No.1 has no application since the petitioner is already given an appointment on compassionate ground and hence, the provisions of Rule 3(1) of the Rules has no application. Insofar as reasons assigned at Sl.No.2 is concerned, learned counsel Sri.Sunil Desai would contend that reasons assigned at Sl.No.2 is perverse and contrary to Division Bench Judgment rendered in H.N.Guruprasad's case. He would submit to this Court that reasons assigned at Sl.No.2 is contrary to undertaking given by respondent No.1 wherein respondent No.1 had given undertaking that the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.105168/2016 would be complied within 10 days. He would further argue and contend before this Court that reasons assigned at Sl.No.3 is contrary to the ratio laid down by Division Bench of this Court in H.N.Guruprasad's case. 8. The learned counsel would further marshal his arguments and would urge this Court to examine the reasons assigned at Sl.No.4 which is nothing but gross contempt on the part of respondent No.1. Having given an undertaking that he would implement the order of the learned single Judge within 10 days has in fact advised the department to challenge the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.105168/2016. He would also bring to the notice of this Court that petitioner's claim is being kept pending since 2013 and he has been denied cadre of First Division Assistant. He would further submit to this Court that those who were appointed as First Division Assistants subsequently are further promoted with all consequential benefits. In this background, he would submit that there is gross injustice meted out to the petitioner and hence, the same would warrant interference by this Court. On all these material facts, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge this Court to quash the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-P and issue appropriate directions. 9. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate while supporting the reasons assigned by respondent No.1 would again rely on Rule 6(4) of the Rules and contend before this Court that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment as First Division Assistant based on qualification. 10. 9. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate while supporting the reasons assigned by respondent No.1 would again rely on Rule 6(4) of the Rules and contend before this Court that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment as First Division Assistant based on qualification. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. 11. The controversy in the present case on hand is squarely covered by Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of The Director of Municipal Administration and Others Vs H.N.Guruprasad and Another, (2009) ILR(Kar) 1462 . The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced for better understanding. "In our considered opinion, the above rule is not attracted to the facts of this case at all. If the authorities had overlooked the qualification the applicant already possessed at the time of his appointment and also ignored the representation of the applicant mainly because the authorities have passed an appointment order to a lower post, will not take away the right of the petitioner to claim the higher post. Therefore, in our considered opinion Section 6(4) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. But at the same time, we find the respondent-writ petitioner was unnecessarily harassed for the past 17 years by the respondents. Hence we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to award exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/-. Writ appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-." 12. In the light of the above said finding by the Division Bench, let me examine the order passed by the learned single Judge in earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.105168/2016. This Court has already set aside the earlier endorsement which was issued by relying on Rule 6(4) of the Rules. The learned single Judge by relying on Division Bench judgment rendered in H.N.Guruprasad's case rightly held that the petitioner as on the date of submitting representation on compassionate ground was holding a degree of Bachelor of Science and hence, he was entitled to be appointed as First Division Assistant instead of Second Division Assistant. The learned single Judge by relying on Division Bench judgment rendered in H.N.Guruprasad's case rightly held that the petitioner as on the date of submitting representation on compassionate ground was holding a degree of Bachelor of Science and hence, he was entitled to be appointed as First Division Assistant instead of Second Division Assistant. The impugned endorsement was quashed by this Court and a direction was issued to respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 03.12.2013 strictly in terms of the ratio laid down by Division Bench of this Court in H.N.Guruprasad's case. There was also positive direction to consider the representation within three months from the date of receipt of fresh representation. Since there was inaction on the part of respondent No.1, contempt proceedings was initiated in CCC No.100035/2019. The relevant portion of the order in the contempt proceedings is culled out hereunder: "Sri. C.S.Patil, learned Government Advocate on instructions from Project Director appearing on behalf of contemnor submits that order of learned Single Juge will be complied within 10 days. His submission is placed on record. 2. In view of the same, these contempt proceedings stand disposed of recording the submission/undertaking of the learned Government Advocate. 3. If for any reason, the same is not complied within the date as undertaken, complainant would be at liberty to seek for revival of the present contempt petitions." 13. On bare reading of the above said portion of the contempt proceedings, it is clearly evident that respondent No.1 filed an undertaking that they would comply the order of the learned single Judge within 10 days. The compliance of the learned single Judge would necessarily indicate and mean that respondent No.1 cannot revisit the provisions of Rule 6(4) of the Rules and examine the entitlement of the petitioner. The fact that respondent No.1 submitted that he would comply the order of the learned single Judge would necessarily mean and indicate that representation submitted by the petitioner was required to be considered strictly in terms of the ratio laid down by this Court in H.N.Guruprasad's case wherein in identical issue, the petitioner in the said case was given appointment as First Division Assistant based on his qualification and that order was implemented by the respondents by order dated 07.11.2009. 14. 14. When the impugned order is examined in the light of the undertaking given by respondent No.1 in contempt proceedings, I am of the view that respondent No.1 has virtually violated the order of the learned single Judge as per Annexure-L to the present writ petition and has also violated the undertaking given before this Court in contempt proceedings. When the learned single Judge of this Court had quashed the impugned endorsement under Rule 6(4) of the Rules, respondent No.1 had no authority to rake up the same issue and hence, the reasons assigned at Sl.No.2 is contrary to the proposition laid down by this Court in H.N.Guruprasad's case. When the Division Bench of this Court in H.N.Guruprasad's case has held that authorities cannot ignore the right of an applicant to seek higher post in view of the applicant passing higher qualification at the time of giving compassionate appointment, respondent No.1 ought to have passed appropriate orders on the representation in strict compliance of the ratio laid down by this Court in H.N.Guruprasad's case. 15. In the present case on hand, the authorities have overlooked the qualification of the applicant which he already possessed at the time of his appointment and his representation has been ignored, which the authority could not have. Therefore, the representation was rightly submitted by the petitioner by furnishing all documents to demonstrate that he was holding a degree of Bachelor of Science as on the date of appointment. The endorsement issued by respondent No.1 by invoking the provisions of Rule 6(4) of the Rules which is already quashed by this Court in W.P.No.105168/2016 as per Annexure-L is illegal. 16. The reasons assigned by respondent No.1 at Sl.No.4 is in blatant violation of undertaking given by respondent No.1 in contempt proceedings. Having given an undertaking that they would comply the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.105168/2016, however, in the impugned order, respondent No.1 in fact advised his department to file an appeal to challenge the order passed in W.P.No.105168/2016. This amounts to gross contempt. Respondent No.1 by passing the impugned order has exceeded his authority and has acted contrary to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.105168/2016 and also contrary to undertaking given before this Court. 17. This amounts to gross contempt. Respondent No.1 by passing the impugned order has exceeded his authority and has acted contrary to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.105168/2016 and also contrary to undertaking given before this Court. 17. The concept of rule of law would lose its validity if the instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging their functions in a fair and just manner. The requirement of acting judicially in essence is nothing but a requirement to act justly and fairly and not arbitrarily and capriciously. Respondent No.1 has exceeded his authority in the following the principle decided in H.N.Guruprasad's case. Respondent No.1 has committed error of law apparent on face. There was statutory cost on respondent No.1 to consider representation submitted by petitioner in terms of H.N.Guruprasad's case which is squarely applicable to petitioner's case. There is deliberate breach of duty by respondent No.1. The evidence on record clearly indicates that petitioner has made distinct demand by placing clinching material to demonstrate that he is entitled for appointment for the post of First Division Assistant on the basis of qualification and the same is refused by the authority which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The procedure adopted by respondent No.1 is not in accordance with law and the order under challenge deserves to be quashed by this Court. 18. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated Nil-07.2019 passed by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-P is quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner as per Annexure-M and pass appropriate order strictly in terms of the ratio laid down by this Court in H.N.Guruprasad's case. Respondent No.1 shall also take note of the Government Order dated 07.11.2009 wherein respondents have implemented order of this Court in identical case and given an appointment to one Sri.H.N.Guruprasad. Respondent No.1 shall also take note of the undertaking given in contempt proceedings in CCC No.100035/2019, wherein an undertaking is given in unequivocal terms that they would comply the order of the learned single Jude passed in W.P.No.105168/2016 within 10 days.