1 wp-2293-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2293 OF 2010 Sangita w/o Raju Bhogaonkar .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mrs. S.V. Deshmukh for petitioner. Mr. A.B. Vagyani, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. M.S. Karnik for respondent nos.2 to 4. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. OCTOBER 21, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Mrs. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Karnik, the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 4. The learned AGP appears for respondent no.1. 2. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is seeking orders for her appointment on compassionate ground 2 wp-2293-10 and in the post of junior clerk on the establishment of the District Court at Parbhani. 3. The petitioner’s husband Shri Raju s/o Trimbakrao Bhogaonkar was employed as a junior clerk on the establishment of the District Court, Parbhani and while in service, he died on 12/11/2002. About one year thereafter, the petitioner applied to the District Judge at Parbhani on 20/11/2003 seeking appointment in the post of junior clerk on compassionate ground. It was noted that she did not possess the qualification of graduation and, therefore, her case could be considered for appointment as a peon and, in fact, the District Judge, Parbhani vide his letter dated 19/3/2004 informed the Registry of this court that one post of peon was vacant at Hingoli. She was called upon to give her willingness and by her letter dated 12/3/2004 she stated that she would consider appointment on the post of junior clerk and not for the post of peon. The District Judge had no alternative but to submit his report and finally the High Court administration could not appoint the petitioner as a peon on compassionate ground. Her application was rejected. 4. Two years later, she approached the Principal District Judge, 3 wp-2293-10 Parbhani and submitted that she acquired the qualification of B.A. and, therefore, her case should be considered for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of junior clerk. The application was forwarded by the Principal District Judge to the Registry on 20/10/2006 and by the impugned letter, she was informed that her case could not be considered for compassionate appointment. 5. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not available as a matter of right and such appointments are governed by the guide-lines framed. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma [AIR 1994 SC 845], the Supreme Court considered the law on compassionate appointments and observed that the claimant has no right to any particular post of his/her choice. A Division Bench of this court was again called upon to address to the same issue in Writ Petition No. 497 of 2000. The petitioner therein had also claimed appointment on the post of junior clerk though she was not a graduate and when she was, instead, offered appointment as a peon, she had declined. She filed the petition and it was dismissed with the following observations: “By this petition, the petitioner wants to be appointed as Clerk 4 wp-2293-10 on compassionate ground. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was offered an appointment as Peon. But, the petitioner insisted to be appointed as Clerk. In our opinion, no such insistence can be made and hence the petitioner was not interested in the appointment of peon which was offered to her. It cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the respondents. We see no infirmity in the action taken by the respondents. The petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed as such.” 6. Mrs. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that now the petitioner is inclined to accept the appointment on compassionate ground to the post of peon. We are afraid, this cannot be considered now and in any case claim for compassionate appointment cannot remain for consideration for years together. The compassionate appointment is solely aimed at to provide timely assistance to the family and to provide the family financial support. The petitioner’s husband died on 12/11/2002 and eight years later her claim for compassionate appointment cannot remain alive. 5 wp-2293-10 7. Hence, the petition is rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)