Judgment:
ORDER
V.G. Sabhahit, J.
1. This writ petition is filed by the applicant in Application No. 4941/2003 on the file of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal) Bangalore, being aggrieved by the order dated 26.2.2008 wherein the Tribunal has dismissed the application.
2. The writ petitioner herein filed Application No. 4941/2003 on the file of the Tribunal seeking for striking down of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on compassionate grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1998 wherein Rule 5 has been amended and also the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on compassionate grounds) (Second amendment) Rules, 2000 as unconstitutional and to quash the endorsement dated 17.4.2003 with a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the applicant to the appointment on compassionate ground dated 18.6.2001 and to provide an appointment as per Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1998.
3. It is the case of the applicant that the father of the applicant was in Government service and he died on 5.4.1997. On that date, applicant was a minor, his date of birth is 17.3.1983 and he attained majority on 17.3.2001. The mother of the applicant made a representation for appointment of the applicant, the same was rejected on the ground that applicant was a minor. Thereafter, application was filed on 17.3.2001 after the petitioner attained majority and the said application was rejected on the ground that in view of the amendment of the Karnataka Civil Seivices (Appointment on compassionate Grounds) (Second amendment) Rules, 2000 since applicant did not attain majority within one year from the date of death of his father on 5.4.1997, the appointment of the applicant on compassionate ground, was rejected the Tribunal upheld the constitutional validity of the amendment of the Rules impugned in the application following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court and accordingly, dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal dated 26.2.2008, the applicant before the Tribunal has preferred this writ petition.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that application had been made after the death of father of the petitioner and the same was not considered on the ground that petitioner had not attained majority and application has to be filed after he attains majority and therefore, the application is filed after the petitioner attained majority and the amendment of the Rule referred to above is unconstitutional.
6. The question of validity of the amendment of the Rules referred to above impugned in the application has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Sri. K.M. Prakash v. The State of Karnataka, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Service Rules) : ILR 2007 KAR 3108 and all the contentions raised by the writ petitioner in the said writ petition are similar to the contentions raised in the present writ petition have been negatived. The Tribunal has followed the earlier decision of the Tribunal and also the Division Bench decision of this Court and has upheld the constitutional validity of the Rule and held that applicant is not entitled to compassionate appointment.
7. In view of the decision of this Court referred to above, the order passed by the Tribunal is justified and does not suffer from any error or illegality as to call for interference in this writ petition and accordingly, we hold that there is no merit in this writ petition and pass the following order:
The writ petition is dismissed.