(1) WP. 2012.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2012 OF 2010 Sachin S/o Bhimrao Jadhav PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and anr. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. N.P. Bangar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent­State. Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for the respondent no.2 ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 8TH JUNE, 2011 ORAL ORDER:­ 1. The petitioner applied for being appointed on compassionate grounds in place of his father who expired on 7.4.2006. It appears that the petitioner applied under the scheme applicable for appointing persons on compassionate grounds on the death of incumbent employee. This scheme is formulated under a Government Resolution. Rules have also been framed by the Government for appointment on compassionate grounds. (2) WP. 2012.2010 2. Under these rules, a person can be appointed on compassionate grounds in place of an employee of Zilla Parishad depending on whether he was related to the deceased employee. Rule 7 of these rules indicates that if any member of the deceased employee's family is working in Government service and is not supporting other members of the family, the appointing authority concerned is expected to take adequate care while scrutinising the economic condition of the family so that there is no misuse of the scheme on the ground that the member of the family who is working does not support, financially, the proposed candidate for employment. 3. It appears that an application was made by the petitioner on 21.4.2006 for employment. The petitioner did not care to disclose that his mother was working with the Zilla Parishad in this application. It appears that the petitioner's name was included in the list of persons to be appointed on compassionate grounds but on further enquiries and investigation it was found that his mother was in Government service. In these circumstances his name (3) WP. 2012.2010 was struck off from the list of persons to be appointed on compassionate grounds. 4. In our opinion, the petitioner ought to have disclosed the fact that his mother was indeed in service with the Government. The petitioner has not denied knowledge of the fact that his mother was in employment with the Government. He has merely stated that his mother does not support him financially as she and his father were living separately. No documents, other than a certificate of residence indicating his mother's place of residence, have been produced by the petitioner to establish this fact. 5. In our opinion, the reasons mentioned in the Petition for not disclosing his mother's employment are an after­thought and the impugned order needs no interference. Petition dismissed. Sd/­ Sd/­ [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] arp