1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2535 / 2010 (Ku.Sonali d/o Late Vinayak Borkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATED : 27th January, 2011. Heard Mr. S.D. Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr Bade, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate ground to respondent no.3-Management in respondent no.4 school. It is contended that the father of the petitioner was working in the school as Assistant Teacher and, after his death, the petitioner made the above-referred application. It is contended that the respondents after considering the applications, initially issued the order of appointment on 3.8.2009 whereby the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground as a Peon in the School. The second order of appointment issued by the management is dated 9/12th November, 2009 and once again the petitioner was appointed as Peon in the respondent no.4-School. The 2 grievance of the petitioner is that since the petitioner was holding qualifications to be appointed as Junior Clerk, the Management ought to have appointed the petitioner on compassionate ground as a Junior Clerk in the Respondent No.4 -School. The learned counsel for the respondents nos. 3 and 4 has submitted that on the earlier occasion, the respondent no.5 was appointed on a compassionate ground as a Peon in Class IV category in respondent no.4 school. It is submitted that when the vacancy occurred in the post of Junior Clerk and since the respondent no.5 was already serving in the respondent no.4- School and had requisite qualification, was appointed as Junior Clerk vide order dated 5.11.2009 and, therefore, for want of vacancy as on today, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment on the post of Junior Clerk and, as such, the petitioner was given appointment in Class IV category on the post of Peon initially. It is submitted that as and when vacancy in the post of Junior Clerk occurs, the case of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective parties. On the backdrop of the above undisputed facts, it is evident that respondent no.5 was appointed prior in point of time on compassionate 3 ground by respondent no.4-Management in respondent no.3-School. The respondent no.5 possessed requisite qualification to be appointed as Junior Clerk when the vacancy occurred, his case was considered for the said post and the management had issued the order dated 5.11.2009 accordingly. Learned counsel for the management has already submitted that there is no vacancy in the post of Junior Clerk is concerned School and, therefore, the petitioner was appointed as Peon. It is in these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the action of the management cannot be faulted with. Even otherwise, the person seeking employment on compassionate ground, have no legal right to ask for a specific post. For the reasons stated herein-above, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare