- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5611-DB WP No. 33137 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 33137 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: MR. SAI PRAKASH B AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANA, WORKING AS GROUP-D EMPLOYEE, O/O EXCISE COMMISSIONER, 2ND FLOOR, ‘A’ BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 027, R/AT NO.339/15, B BLOCK, PWD QUARTERS, WILSON GARDEN NGO COLONY, NEAR BMTC BUS STOP, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GAUTHAM B. S., ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, 2ND FLOOR, ‘A’ BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 027. Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5611-DB WP No. 33137 of 2025 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, 2ND FLOOR, A BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU -560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2025 IN A. NO. 4689/2024 PASSED BY KSAT, BENGALURU, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C, AND ALLOW A. NO.4689/2024 AS PRAYED FOR, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 26.03.2025 in Application No.4689/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) rejecting the petitioner’s prayer to quash endorsement dated 18.07.2024 (Annexure-A6) whereunder the petitioner’s request to appoint to the post - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5611-DB WP No. 33137 of 2025 of Second Division Assistant (SDA) instead of Group-D post on compassionate appointment is rejected. Further, petitioner’s prayer for issuance of direction to appoint him as SDA is also rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Guatham.B.S., for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, father of the petitioner was working as Excise Guard in the Excise Department at Siraguppa Range, Bellary District and while he was in service, died on 05.12.2018. On the application of the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as Group-D employee by order dated 25.01.2022. Accepting the order of appointment, the petitioner joined the service as Group-D employee. More than two years thereafter, petitioner submitted a representation requesting to consider his appointment on compassionate ground to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5611-DB WP No. 33137 of 2025 post of SDA, as he had the qualification of PUC and ITI. The second respondent by endorsement dated 18.07.2024 rejected the petitioner’s request to appoint him as SDA, modifying his appointment to the Group-D post. The said endorsement was the subject matter of the above stated application and the Tribunal under impugned order dated 26.03.2025 rejected the request of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel Sri.B.S.Gautham for the petitioner would contend that as on the date of consideration of the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment, he was qualified for appointment to the Group-C post and instead of appointing him to Group-C post, the respondents erroneously appointed him to Group-D post. Learned counsel referring to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘1996 Rules’) would submit that if a person is qualified to hold the post of Group-C, the authorities are - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5611-DB WP No. 33137 of 2025 not justified in appointing such applicant to a Group-D post. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondent would submit that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be sought as a matter of right and in terms of Rule 6(4) of 1996 Rules, a person once appointed to a post on compassionate ground, cannot seek for fresh appointment to a different post or to a higher post. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and we are of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the authorities rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for appointment as SDA by modifying the order of appointment as Group-D. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5611-DB WP No. 33137 of 2025 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s father was working as Excise Guard in the second respondent- Department and died while in service on 05.12.2018. On application of the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground as Group-D employee by order dated 25.01.2022. Without any protest, the petitioner accepted his appointment to a Group-D post and worked for nearly two years and thereafter petitioner made representation praying to modify his order of appointment to that of SDA, which is rightly rejected by endorsement dated 18.07.2024 by the second respondent. 8. Under Rule 3(1) of 1996 Rules, a dependent of the deceased Government servant cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground as a matter of right. Further, Rule 6(4) of 1996 Rules reads as follows: “6. Appointment by the Competent Authority:- (1) ………………… (2) ………………… (3) ………………… - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5611-DB WP No. 33137 of 2025 (4) Appointment once made under these rules shall be final and no fresh appointment to a different post or higher post under these rules shall be permissible.” 9. In terms of the above Rule, it is clear that once appointment to a post on compassionate ground is made, no fresh appointment to a different post or higher post shall be permissible. 10. The petitioner, in support of his submission has placed reliance on a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS VS. H.N.GURUPRASAD AND ANOTHER1. 11. We have gone through the said decision and it would have no application to the facts of the present case since the said decision was rendered on the facts of that particular case, that too, noting that the petitioner therein was unnecessarily harassed for 17 years. 1 ILR 2009 KAR 1462 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5611-DB WP No. 33137 of 2025 12. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25