1 W.P.No.867/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.867 OF 2010. Ravindranath S/o Baliram More ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.H.V.Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Godbharle, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.B.A.Shinde, advocate for the Respondent No.2 and 3. Mr.B.S.Kudale, advocate for the Respondent No.4. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 18.01.2011. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner claims appointment on 2 W.P.No.867/10 compassionate ground in place of his father. Earlier petitioner's brother Jagdish had filed application which came to be rejected by the Zilla Parishad. The petitioner submits that Annapurna claiming to be legally wedded wife of petitioner's father filed a Civil suit, obtained a decree which was challenged by Anusayabai without making petitioner party respondent to the proceedings of the suit. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that at the appellate forum, Anusayabai and Annapurna reached a compromise which was verified by the Additional District Judge, Hingoli dated 17.3.2006. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Jagdish submits that petitioner has derived all benefit out of the compromise terms and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled now to say that he alone is entitled as legal heir to seek appointment on compassionate ground. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Zilla Parishad submits that on the application filed for appointment on compassionate ground, 3 W.P.No.867/10 the petitioner had signed. The Zilla Parishad had rejected the application of Jagdish and by a communication dated 8.10.2008, the Zilla Parishad had communicated the petitioner that in light of the compromise purshis, the right of the petitioner to claim appointment on compassionate ground had come to an end. 4. The parties are litigating since long on this issue. Sufficient period has elapsed. The parties are at dispute in respect of entitlement to apply. 5. All these issues raised are disputed questions of facts. The parties are at liberty to resort to alternate remedy in appropriate forum. In exercise of our extra ordinary Writ jurisdiction, no interference is called for. The Writ Petition is dismissed. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (NARESH H.PATIL,J.) asp/office/wp867.10 4 W.P.No.867/10