(1) wp5848-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5848 OF 2011 Sudam Dharmanath Shirsat PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.V. Suryawanshi, advocate holding for Mr. A.P. Avhad, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 4th OCTOBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent. 2. The petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment. It is the contention of the petitioner that the person who was at serial No. 1 in the waiting list, has already been appointed and petitioner is at serial No.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is duly qualified to be appointed on compassionate grounds. (2) wp5848-11 3. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that the petitioner could not be appointed initially since the application was not in the prescribed format and not routed through the proper channel. However, according to the respondents, now the application is duly received through the competent Authority. It is further the stand of the respondents that in view of the bar imposed by the State Government vide Govt. Resolution dated 5th May, 2010, which bar was further extended by another Govt. Resolution dated 30th June, 2011, for a further period of one year, the petitioner's application could not be considered. 4. However, from the perusal of the reply- affidavit, it can clearly be seen that the respondents are not disputing the eligibility of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, we had directed learned A.G.P. to seek instructions from the respondents as to when the petitioner can be appointed. A copy of the communication dated 4th October, 2011 is placed on record by the learned A.G.P. It is only stated that in view of the (3) wp5848-11 extension of the bar imposed by the State Government, the petitioner cannot be appointed. It is further stated in the said communication that after the ban ceases to operate, the petitioner's application would be considered on the basis of Rules and Regulations existing then and after taking into consideration the financial benefits that the father of the petitioner had received. We find that the reply-affidavit is neither here nor there. 5. In any case, when a categorical statement is made in the petition that the petitioner is duly qualified to be appointed and since the same is not denied by the respondents, we find that in view of settled legal position, the averments made in the petition which are not controverted, are deemed to have been admitted. We, therefore, allow the petition with directions to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the immediately next available vacancy, commensurate with the educational qualification of the petitioner, that would arise after the ban imposed by the State Government ceases to exist. We make it clear that such an appointment (4) wp5848-11 will be made within a period of one month from the date on which the ban would cease to exist. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] npj/wp5848-11