1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.334 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5323/2008. Mahesh s/o Deosingh Rajput - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and others. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.PB Patil,Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.VD Rakh, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2; Mr.PR Patil, Advocate for Resp.Nos. 3 to 5. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 12th March, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties extensively. 2) The Petitioner/applicant - Mahesh, having desired compassionate appointment in place of his father, who expired during the course of employment, applied the management as per the 2 Rules. His case was recommended even by the Principal of the college, however, it was not considered. Consequently, he approached this Court in Writ Petition No.5323/2008 and by order dated 14.10.2008, the Division Bench of this Court directed the management in para 4 of the order, as under : "4. We direct Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to consider the applications of all six, i.e. petitioner and five applicants named in para 3 of the reply filed by Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 on their own merits within a reasonable time, say, a period of one month from today. In case, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4, upon considering the cases of all six applicants on merits, arrive at a conclusion that any/some of them are entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground, they should be appointed. In case Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 are of the conclusion that any of them is not entitled for compassionate appointment, a reasoned decision may be 3 communicated to the said candidate and thereafter the vacancies, which may remain may be filled in, in accordance with the recruitment process, which has already commenced, may be filled in." 3) It is this order, which the petitioner reiterates is not complied with in its letter and spirit in spite of his communication and persuasion to the authorities including the Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State. 4) During the course of submission, Mr. PR Patil for Respondent nos.3 to 5 informs, the respondents have no grudge or analgetic attitude against the petitioner to accommodate him on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father. Petitioner's educational qualification as XIIth Std. or appearance in B.A. is also not in controversy. His concern is, the petitioner appears in the Wait-list at Serial No.5 and if the directions, as sought are complied, four persons above the petitioner/applicant, may have 4 grievance against the management to invite any wrath at some legal battle. 5) As it is, as on today, there is no mandate against the management so far as those four persons, indicated by Mr. Patil, are concerned. The directions in Writ Petition dated 14.10.2008 need to be scrupulously complied. The petitioner, being accepted to be eligible and entitled, he naturally will have a better hand even if, waiting list of the applicants, to be appointed on compassionate ground, is pending. The age of the petitioner is equally advancing. 6) The other concern, highlighted by Mr. PR Patil is, the Education Department, and particularly Respondent No.2 - Joint Director of Higher Education, may stall such exercise of appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground. 7) The authorities, i.e. Joint Director of 5 Higher Education, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, in the fact situation, would definitely not create obstacle and undesired situation to avoid implementing the orders in Writ Petition No. 5323/2008 dated 14.10.2008. The management, is at liberty, after accommodating the petitioner - Mahesh, to send his proposal for legitimate approval from the Respondent No.2 - Joint Director of Higher Education. 8) In view of the above factual details, since there is a positive response from the management indicated herein above, Mr. PB Patil, on instructions, does not press the present Contempt Petition. It is accordingly disposed of in above terms. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/cp334.09