1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.804 OF 2010 (Smt. Mamta wd/o Suresh Dudhbale vs. The Ministry of Coal and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : APRIL 13, 2010 Heard Shri Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no.1, and Shri Mehadia, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2. The petition is directed against the order dated 10.9.2005 whereby application/claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the respondent no.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and respondent no.2 has not given any reason whatsoever for rejecting the claim of the petitioner though it is 2 not in dispute that husband of the petitioner was the employee of the respondent no.2 and, therefore, petitioner in fact is eligible to get the employment in respondent no.2 Department. Shri Mehadia, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2, states that the respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit and stated that some fraud was played by late husband of the petitioner Shri Suresh during his life time and, therefore, petitioner is not eligible to get appointment. Be that as it may, the impugned order does not disclose any reason as to why application, which was made by the petitioner, seeking employment on compassionate ground came to be rejected. The impugned order is totally a non- speaking order. The respondent no.2 in the affidavit has mentioned lot of facts and claimed that it is in view of those facts, the petitioner is not eligible to get appointment. It is well settled that the order rejecting application must disclose the reasons and not the affidavit, which is filed by the Department. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we quash and set aside the impugned order and remand 3 the issue back to the respondent no.2 to decide the same in accordance with law by following principles of natural justice within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. We expect the respondent no.2 to pass a reasoned order one way or the other. With these observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj