An unchallenged rejection of compassionate appointment attains finality and cannot be revived through later representations.

The appellant’s father, a Veterinary Compounder, died while on duty on 12 March 1986. The appellant sought compassionate appointment and made an application in 2002.

The authorities rejected his request by proceedings dated 23 September 2008; he did not challenge that rejection.

He later submitted representations dated 19 February 2022 and 3 October 2023, and again referred to the 23 September 2008 representation.

After the authorities did not consider them, he sought a mandamus in W.P. No. 203399 of 2023.

The Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the 1996 rules applied and that the earlier rejection disclosed no illegality or irregularity.

The appellant appealed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.

1. Whether the authorities were required to consider the appellant’s later representations seeking compassionate appointment despite the 2008 rejection of his request

2. Whether the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition disclosed an error warranting appellate interference

The Single Judge applied the 1996 rules governing compassionate appointment, as applicable when the appellant applied in 2002, and concluded that the appellant was not entitled to appointment under those rules.

The Division Bench also applied the principle that an unchallenged rejection order attains finality; it identified no statutory provision or precedent requiring reconsideration of the subsequent representations.

The authorities had rejected the appellant’s compassionate-appointment request by proceedings dated 23 September 2008, and the appellant had not challenged that decision.

The Division Bench therefore treated the rejection as final and found that later representations did not establish a basis to require reconsideration.

It agreed with the Single Judge that the 1996 rules governed the application and found no error in the dismissal of the writ petition.

It dismissed the writ appeal and left the 2008 rejection of the compassionate-appointment request undisturbed.