1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3645/2009 Sundarbai w/o Nivrutti Gorte .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri U.B.Bilolikar,Adv.for petitioner. Shri N.N.Jadhav,AGP for Respondents .... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & R.K.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 22/06/2009 ORAL ORDER : This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which petitioner seeks to challenge an order dated 7/11/2008 passed by Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Board, Nanded holding that the petitioner was over aged and therefore deleting name of the petitioner from the list of eligible candidates for appointment on compassionate grounds. 2. It appears that the husband of the petitioner who had been employed as Driver in the Mechanical Sub Division, Nanded, died on 2 9/10/97. On 16/2/98 the petitioner filed application seeking her appointment on compassionate ground. Pursuant to her application, her name came to be included in the list of candidates for appointment on compassionate ground. It appears that the petitioner slept over her rights for a period of 10 years till the receipt of the impugned order. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application contending that as per the Scheme which envisages appointment on compassionate grounds when the petitioner had submitted her application, upper age limit was not prescribed and consequently, the Government Resolution issued subsequently thereof could not be made restrospectively applicable. 3. Aforesaid submission according to us is wholly misconceived. After the petitioner submitted her application, the petitioner was kept on a wait list and the petitioner accepted that wait list without any demur for about 10 years. Thereafter, since upper age limit was prescribed and since petitioner had not been granted any appointment, the name of petitioner came to be deleted. The petitioner could sustain for a period of 10 years without any appointment on compassionate ground. We do not see any merit in the matter, requiring petitioner to be appointed on compassionate ground. The appointment on compassionate ground is not an avenue for employment, but appointments on compassionate ground are given to 3 the family members who on account of the sudden demise of the bread winner are faced with manifold difficulties including where their very survival is jeopardized. In the present case, petitioner now wants that her son be appointed on compassionate ground. 4. In the light of what has been stated by us, we see no merit in the petition and petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [R.K.DESHPANDE,J.] [P.V.HARDAS,J.] umg/wp3645-09