- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:369 WP No. 107272 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 107272 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI. SANTOSH V.HOSAMANI S/O. LATE VITTAL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. 1ST CROSS, GOKUL NAGAR, NILAJI/MUTAGA-591 124, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.B.KONI AND SRI DEEPAK S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA STATE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI-590 002. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA) MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.20 15:21:15 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:369 WP No. 107272 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 15/09/2022, VIDE NO.¸ÀASÉå:¹§âA¢/¹f/16/2009-10, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE APPOINTMENT TO THE APPLICANT ON COMPENSATORY GROUNDS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the endorsement dated 15.09.2022 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi District, whereby the petitioner's request for appointment on compassionate grounds came to be rejected, and seeking a consequential direction to provide such appointment. 2. The petitioner claims to be the adopted son of late Vittal Bhimappa Hosamani, who was working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Karnataka Police Department and died in harness on 20.09.2009. The petitioner relies upon the registered adoption deed dated 09.02.1995. After - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:369 WP No. 107272 of 2024 the death of the employee, the petitioner submitted applications in 2009 and 2010, seeking compassionate appointment, which were rejected by an endorsement dated 16.07.2011. 3. The said rejection was challenged before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (8Tribunal9 for short) in Application No.7167/2011, which came to be dismissed by order dated 05.08.2018. 4. Subsequently, on basis of an amendment dated 09.04.2021 to Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1966 (8Rules9 for short), and a later decision of this Court, recognizing the claim of an adopted son, the petitioner submitted a fresh application on 18.07.2022, the said application was rejected by the impugned endorsement dated 15.09.2022, leading to the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned endorsement is arbitrary and illegal as it fails - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:369 WP No. 107272 of 2024 to consider the 2021 amendment to the Rules. An adopted son is deemed to be a son for all purposes under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and therefore cannot be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointment. 6. It is submitted that respondent-authorities have ignored the judgment of this Court in the case of Girish son of Vinayak Kmuttatti Vs. State of Karnataka and Others1 (Girish), wherein this Court directed that the claim for compassionate appointment of an adopted son be considered on par with that of a natural-born son, without drawing any distinction between an adopted son and a natural son. The denial of compassionate appointment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the petitioner is unemployed, without any source of income, and the rejection defeats the very object of compassionate appointment. 1 W.A.No.100362/2022 D.D 04.11.2022 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:369 WP No. 107272 of 2024 7. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was rejected in 2011 and the said rejection was affirmed by the Tribunal in 2014, which has attained finality. The 2021 amendment to the Rules does not operate retrospectively and cannot revise stale or barred claims. Reliance on the subsequent judgment of this Court recognizing the claim of an adopted son is misplaced, as such decisions cannot override the finality of the Tribunal's order in the petitioner's case. The impugned endorsement dated 15.09.2022 is legal and justified, warranting no interference. 8. On consideration of the material on record, this Court finds that the claim for compassionate appointment was initially rejected in 2011, and the said rejection attained finality upon dismissal of Application No.7167/2011 by the Tribunal in 2014. The petitioner did not challenge the said order further, and therefore the issue stood concluded. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:369 WP No. 107272 of 2024 9. The subsequent application filed in 2022 is nothing but an attempt to reopen a settled issue by placing reliance on a later amendment and a subsequent decision of this Court. Compassionate appointment is not a vested or a hereditary right, but an exception carved out to meet immediate financial hardship arising on the death of an employee. In the present case, the death occurred in 2009, and more than a decade has elapsed. The very object of compassionate appointment thus stands frustrated by lapse of time. 10. The amendment dated 09.04.2021 cannot be construed as reviving stale or concluded claims, nor does it confer a fresh cause of action upon those whose claims have already been adjudicated and rejected. The decision placed reliance in the case of Girish is not applicable to the present facts and cannot override the principle of finality of litigation in the petitioner's case, and Girish9s case is distinct from the present facts. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:369 WP No. 107272 of 2024 11. In view of the earlier rejection affirmed by the Tribunal, the long delay and settled legal position governing compassionate appointment, this finds no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned endorsement warranting any interference. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60