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. 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 (he