1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6482 OF 2009 Laxmibai W/o Ashok Borade. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. V.G. Mete, Advocate for petitioner. Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1,2 and 3. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE: 18th NOVEMBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner’s husband was working as Peon in Tahsil Office Gangakhed. He died on 21-8-2006. The petitioner has five children. 2 The petitioner applied to the Collector for appointment on compassionate ground. The said application came to be rejected by the Collector on 30-11-2006 on the ground that as per the Government Resolution dated 31st December 2001 the petitioner was blessed with third child after the cut-off date, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground. This order was challenged before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.586 of 2009. 3) The Original Application was dismissed. The learned counsel Shri. Mete submits that there is good evidence in the shape of school record to show that after the cutoff date none of the issue was born to the petitioner. Affidavit-in-reply is filed by Bhausaheb Thorat, Tahsildar, Gangakhed for 3 respondent Nos.1 to 3. Learned AGP Smt. Gondhalekar placed on record a copy of application filed by the petitioner to the Tahsildar, Parbhani dated 29-8-2006 wherein the age of daughter Dipali was shown as 2 years. The Tribunal observed in the order that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal with the plea that her daughter Nos.4 and 5 both were born after 21-12-2001 were given in adoption. The registered adoption deeds are dated 7-3-2008 and 4-3-2008. 4) Apart from merits of the case the settled principle is that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as of right. The public employment is provided in tune with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Compassionate appointments are exception to the rule. 4 5) In the facts of the case the responsible officer like Collector was not convinced with the plea raised by the petitioner. We are satisfied with the decision making process. We do not find any error in the view adopted by the Tribunal. 6) No case is made for causing interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.6482.09