1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

2. The learned Government Pleader has filed stated of objections to contest the petition. Hence, pleadings being complete, the petition is considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances, out of turn.

3. The father of the petitioner one S.M. Nanjundaiah was working as a driver with the third respondent. Apart from the petitioner, Nanjundaiah had two other daughters all of whom were married. The petitioner is the youngest of the children. She was married as on 31-3-2002. However, the petitioner’s marriage had broken down and by virtue of divorce proceedings having been initiated before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Kolar, the marriage stood dissolved. The petitioner thereafter has returned to her maternal home and was residing along with her father. She also has a child by her marriage who is a boy aged 3 years. Apart from the amount received at the settlement in divorce proceedings in a sum of Rs.75,000/-, she has no other source of livelihood. The petitioner’s father having died in harness as on 24-10-2010 leaving behind his widow, the petitioner and her child, the petitioner had made and application on 26-11-2010 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds while also specifically declaring that she has no other source of livelihood. The third respondent on receipt of the application, has issued an endorsement to state that petitioner cannot be appointed on compassionate grounds as she was the married daughter of S M Nanjundaiah and since the Rule does not contemplate a married daughter as being enabled to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. That the petitioner’s case could not be considered in spite of the petitioner having sought to claim that she was entirely dependent on her father for her livelihood along with her child and therefore was still in a position to claim as an unmarried daughter has been rejected. It is in that background, that the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned Government Pleader would point out that it is true that the petitioner’s father died in harness, it is equally true that petitioner was the married daughter of late Nanjundaiah and since the petitioner admittedly claims as having been divorced from her husband and having received a substantial sum by way of settlement, the question of the petitioner claiming dependency as a part of the family of Nanjundaiah and as defined under the rule is not available to the petitioner. He would point out that according to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, Rule 3(1) would provide for appointment on compassionate grounds, which shall not be claimed as a matter of right, and would not be given as a matter of course, it would be restricted to the dependent of the deceased Government Servant in the following order: namely

(a) widow

(b) son

(c) unmarried daughter or widowed daughter and therefore, he would submit that there is no illegality in the rejection of the petitioner’s claim.

5. In the above circumstances, the question would be whether the petitioner could claim as an unmarried daughter, being a divorced woman and in the face of the fact that she had received Rs.75,000/- as a settlement from her erstwhile husband, whether she could claim dependency and therefore seek appointment on compassionate grounds on her father’s death since the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that she was not an unmarried daughter or a widowed daughter of the deceased. The question would be whether she can be considered as one defined under the Rules because she is no longer married as she is a divorced woman.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on a judgment of this Court in Manjula vs State of Karnataka By its Secretary, Department of Co-operation, Bangalore & Another (ILR 2004 KAR 4881) wherein this Court, in the case