1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3742 OF 2007 Vikram s/o Uttamrao Banchod ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.R. Palnitkar, Advocate for the petitioner Shri R.P. Phatke, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 5 ..... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 9th July, 2010 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner contends that his father was Clerk in B & C Department, who died in the year 2004. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 30.11.2004. The petitioner claims that his name was appearing at Sr.No.1 in the waiting list, but due to the Circular issued by the State, upgrading the post of Junior Engineer to Class II, the petitioner was not appointed. 2. The State filed affidavit-in-reply. We have perused the same. The counsel for the petitioner submits that, in other Departments and Corporations of the State, the post of Junior 2 Engineer is not a Class II post, but in B & C Department, it has been upgraded which is causing prejudice to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner claims appointment on compassionate ground. Such requests are to be considered in the light of the policy of the State and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in this regard. A person claiming appointment on compassionate ground will not have legal right to claim the post. As bread earner of the family was lost, considering the exigencies of the circumstances and in view of the policy, in the given fact situation of a case, request for compassionate appointment is required to be considered and communicated to the petitioner by passing a brief reasoned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was not communicated in writing, but orally it was informed that Engineer's post was upgraded, so the petitioner cannot be appointed. 5. In case the Department considers the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate ground, then any other lower post available could also be offered to the petitioner, but firstly the Department will have to consider whether the petitioner is required to be appointed on compassionate ground in the light of the observations 3 made by us as above and the principles laid down in this behalf and the policy of the State. 6. We, therefore, direct the respondent No.5 to hear the petitioner, go through the record and thereafter pass a brief reasoned order and communicate the petitioner its decision within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner to appear before respondent No.5 on 22nd July 2010 at 11.00 A.M. Writ Petition disposed of accordingly. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) fmp/wp3742.07