1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 574 OF 2011 (Gajanan Kanhaiyya Chawre .v. Nagar Palika and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Shriniwas Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 10TH AUGUST, 2011. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate ground in place of respondent No.2, who, according to the petitioner, has obtained appointment on compassionate ground by practicing fraud on the respondent No.1. The father of the petitioner by name Kanhaiyya had expired on 05.02.1992 while in service of the respondent No.1. It is the case of the petitioner that an application was moved by the petitioner's mother on 05.03.1992 for keeping a post vacant as her elder son, the petitioner, would apply for appointment on compassionate ground after he attains the age of majority. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2, who is the nephew of late Kanhaiyya, however sought the appointment on compassionate ground in the year 1993 by producing a false and fabricated document showing that there was a consent of Smt. Shobha, the widow of Kanhaiyya for his appointment. The respondent No.2 was appointed on compassionate ground on 12.11.1993. It is the case of the petitioner that after attaining the age of majority, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent No.1 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. After seeking information under the Right to Information Act, it is the case of the petitioner, that he became aware that the respondent No.2 had sought appointment on compassionate 2 ground in view of the death of petitioner's father Shri Kanhaiyya. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the petition is liable to be dismissed for more reasons than one. Firstly, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as of right. Secondly, the object of providing compassionate appointment is to provide financial help and succour to the family who loses the bread winner and in this case Kanhaiyya had died as early as in the year 1992. Hence, when this petition is filed after lapse of merely 20 years from the death of Kanhaiyya, there is no question of showing any compassion and granting appointment to the petitioner who has now attained the age of 27 years. It is also necessary to note that the respondent No.1 has denied that the mother of the petitioner had asked the respondent No.1 to keep one post vacant by the communication dated 05.03.1992. The receipt of this communication is denied by the respondent No.1. The counsel for the respondent No.1, in fact, submitted that the mother of the petitioner had asked the respondent No.1 to appoint her nephew on compassionate ground on the death of late Shri Kanhaiyya. The nephew of the deceased has been working on the post since the year 1993. The issue whether the respondent No.2 had secured appointment on compassionate in the year 1993 by producing false and fraudulent document cannot be decided while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as this Court would not be in a position to record a finding whether the respondent No.2 obtained appointment by practicing fraud on the respondent No.1. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.