1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4582 OF 2007 (Prashant s/o Uttamrao Ingole vs. State and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri P.P. Pendke, Advocate for petitioner. Shri A. Parihar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Shri A.H. Laddhad, Advocate for respondent nos. 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18. Shri V.M. Kitey, Advocate for respondent nos.10, 11 and 19. --------- CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND P.B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : JULY 7, 2010 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner is basically challenging the appointments of respondent nos. 6 to 21, who were appointed on compassionate ground on Class III posts. Respondent no.3 has filed a detailed affidavit stating therein that the appointments of respondent nos.6 to 21 were made in order to clear the 2 backlog of 23 posts of various reserved categories in Class III in General Administration Department of respondent Zilla Parishad. Insofar as petitioner is concerned, he cannot claim any right over the posts on which respondent nos.6 to 21 were appointed on compassionate ground. It further appears from the reply-affidavit that an advertisement was issued for direct recruitment, including for the two posts in Class III and five posts in Class IV for Scheduled Caste candidates. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. In response to this advertisement dated 10/5/2006, the petitioner did not apply for the said posts. It is further stated that as on today, there is no vacancy in the Scheduled Caste category in Class III and IV. In view thereof, we find no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed as such. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from applying for the post reserved for Scheduled Caste, if advertised, in future. JUDGE JUDGE khj 3