ORDER : Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement dated 19.08.2017 bearing No.bema.aa.Pra/hu.Kaa-1/c.v/611/2017-18 vide Annexure-A and endorsement dated 28.02.2011 bearing No.bem.aa.praa/aa/cv/hu.kaa-1/3269/2010-11 1:6 CGA vide Annexure-G and for a direction to respondents No.2 to 4 to consider the applications of the petitioner at Annexures-D, E and F and to provide him appointment on compassionate ground. 2. Heard Sri.B.N.Umesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sridhar N.Hegde, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri.Vasanth, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4. Perused the writ petition papers and statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4. 3. The brief facts of the case are: The petitioner’s father L.Channaiah joined the services of the second respondent as Literate Mazdoor on daily wage basis on 16.07.1976. Subsequently, his services were regularized by order dated 17.02.1997 w.e.f. 01.01.1990 in supernumerary post. While working as such, the father of the petitioner Sri.Channaiah died on 08.01.2002. As required under the Rules, the petitioner, on 13.05.2002 made an application requesting compassionate appointment. The petitioner also made several reminder representations on 01.05.2002, 13.05.2002 and 09.04.2003, requesting appointment on compassionate ground. Long thereafter, under Annexure-G dated 28.02.2011, petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment was rejected stating that the father of the petitioner was working against a supernumerary post and the said supernumerary post would get cancelled on retirement or on death of such employee working against the supernumerary post. Thereafter, it appears that the respondent-BDA sought clarification from the Government as to the benefit of compassionate appointment to the legal representatives of the employee died in harness, who was working against supernumerary post. Under Annexure-J dated 05.08.2016, the first respondent-Government clarified that the employees who are working as against supernumerary post are also to be considered as permanent employees and if any such employee dies while in service, the family members of such an employee would be entitled to the benefit of Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “1996 Rules” for short). On receipt of clarification from the Government, the respondents/BDA, under Official Memorandum dated 22.02.2017 took a decision to consider the pending applications for compassionate appointment as well as to review the cases where already endorsements have been issued in the light of the clarification issued by the Government. On receipt of clarification from the Government, the respondents/BDA, under Official Memorandum dated 22.02.2017 took a decision to consider the pending applications for compassionate appointment as well as to review the cases where already endorsements have been issued in the light of the clarification issued by the Government. Accordingly, the respondents/BDA reviewed the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and issued an endorsement at Annexure-A dated 19.08.2017. In the endorsement, second respondent-BDA stated that, on re-examination of the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, since the petitioner is over-aged, request of the petitioner is rejected. 4. The respondents-BDA in its objection mainly contend that the writ petition is filed after lapse of about 16 years and it is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Further it is contended that the petitioner has accepted the rejection of his request for compassionate appointment under endorsement dated 28.02.2011 as per Annexure-G. Now, it is not open for the petitioner to seek for compassionate appointment. It is also contended that as on the date of consideration of petitioner’s case, he was over-aged being more than 40 years. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the reason assigned for rejection of the petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate ground that the petitioner is over-aged is unreasonable and opposed to Rule (6) of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “1977 Rules” for short). Learned counsel would further submit that Rule (6) of 1977 Rules provides for maximum age limit of 40 years in case of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, 38 years in case of persons belonging to Backward Classes and 35 years in case of other persons. The age to be reckoned as on the last date fixed for receipt of application or on such other date as may be specified by the Appointing Authority. In the instant case, the petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground initially on 13.05.2002. The said date is to be reckoned for determining the age for appointment. Further, he also submits that the delay on the part of respondents in considering the application cannot be held against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in submitting the application praying for compassionate appointment. Further, he also submits that the delay on the part of respondents in considering the application cannot be held against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in submitting the application praying for compassionate appointment. Rule 5 of 1977 Rules requires that the application to be made within one year which the petitioner has made. Thus, prays for allowing the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 submits that there is inordinate delay of more than 16 years in approaching this Court seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Only on the ground of delay and laches, the writ petition is to be rejected. He further submits that purpose of providing compassionate appointment would no longer survive at this length of time. It is also submitted that as on the date of consideration of petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment, the petitioner was over-aged, as such, he justifies the issuance of endorsement at Annexure-A dated 19.08.2017. It is also his submission that earlier, as per Annexure-G, petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment was rejected on 28.02.2011, which the petitioner has not challenged. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. No doubt, the purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to mitigate the immediate hardship that would be suffered by the family of the deceased bread winner. Such appointment should be made immediately and there should not be any delay in considering such applications. Petitioner’s father was working as Literate Mazdoor in respondents-BDA who died in harness on 08.01.2002. Immediately, within the period prescribed under the Rules, the petitioner submitted the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Even though the said applications were made on 10.05.2002, 09.04.2003 and 22.03.2004 the respondents-BDA took its own time to consider the applications of the petitioner. The laxity on the part of the respondents/BDA cannot be held against the petitioner who has submitted his application for compassionate appointment within the time prescribed under the Rules. It is not the case of the respondents/BDA that the petitioner’s application is time barred nor the application is defective. The first rejection of petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment under Annexure-G dated 28.02.2011 was on the ground that petitioner’s father was working against supernumerary post and such supernumerary post would get abolished on retirement or death of a person holding such post. The first rejection of petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment under Annexure-G dated 28.02.2011 was on the ground that petitioner’s father was working against supernumerary post and such supernumerary post would get abolished on retirement or death of a person holding such post. Subsequently on clarification sought by the second respondent, the first respondent-Government under its letter dated 05.08.2016 clarified as follows: OTHER LANGUAGE The above clarification by the first respondent- Government makes it clear that even though the employee is working against supernumerary post, he shall be considered as permanent employee and if such an employee dies while in service, his family members would be entitled for the benefit of 1996 Rules. 8. In the light of the above clarification, the second respondent/BDA, on its own reviewed the case of the petitioner as it had taken a general decision to review all the cases of compassionate appointment wherever endorsements rejecting their cases were issued. While reviewing the case of the petitioner, the second respondent/BDA rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is over-aged. The said rejection of petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment is unreasonable and is the result of improper application of mind. 9. Rule 6(1) of 1977 Rules reads as follows: “6. Age limit for appointment.-[(1) Save as otherwise provided in the rules of recruitment specially made and applicable to any service or post prescribing higher age limit, every candidate for appointment by direct recruitment must have attained the age of eighteen years and not attained the age of.- [(a) [forty years] in the case of a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Schedule Tribes or Category-I of other Backward Classes; (b) [thirty-eight years] in the case of a person belonging to any of the Category –II(a) or II(b) or III(a) or III(b) of other Backward Classes; and (c) [thirty-five years] in the case of any other person, on the last date fixed for the receipt of applications or on such other date, as may be specified by the Appointing Authority.]” A reading of the above rule would abundantly makes it clear that the age for appointment is to be reckoned as on the last date fixed for receipt of application or such other date as may be specified by the Appointing Authority. Rule 4(2) of 1996 Rules states that the person seeking appointment shall be within the age limit specified for the post in the relevant Rules of recruitment read with sub-Rule (3) of Rule 6 of 1977 Rules. Therefore, age for the purpose of compassionate appointment shall be reckoned on the date of making application for such appointment. When the application is made by the petitioner within time and as on the date of filing of the application, requesting for compassionate appointment if the petitioner was within the age limit prescribed and if such an application is kept pending for years together and ultimately if the respondents come to the conclusion that as on the date of consideration of his application, to say that the petitioner is over-aged is wholly unreasonable and unfair. As stated above, laxity in consideration of the petitioner’s application and improper consideration of the said application cannot be held against the petitioner. Long delay in considering the petitioner’s application and also reviewing the case of the petitioner on receipt of clarification from the Government, taking its own time cannot put the petitioner in a disadvantageous position. Here, in the instant case, delay in consideration of application is on the part of the respondents/BDA and there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in making application for appointment on compassionate ground. The contention that the petitioner has not challenged the endorsement dated 28.02.2011 and the petitioner has accepted the same cannot be appreciated in the facts of the present case, since the second respondent on its own reviewed the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the Official Memorandum dated 22.02.2007 vide Annexure-H1. 10. For the reasons recorded above and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the endorsement bearing No. bema.aa.Pra/hu.Kaa-1/c.v/611/2017-18 dated 19.08.2017 vide Annexure-A and endorsement bearing No.bem.aa.praa/aa/cv/hu.kaa-1/3269/2010-11 1:6 CGA dated 28.02.2011 vide Annexure-G are quashed. Respondents No.2 to 4 are directed to consider the applications of the petitioner vide Annexure-D dated.10.05.2002, Annexure-E dated 09.04.2003 and Annexure-F dated 22.03.2004 in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with the 1996 and 1977 Rules. The respondents No.2 to 4 are directed to comply the directions issued by this Court in this writ petition, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.