1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6533 OF 2008 Fatima Babu Sutar .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Masurkar, G.P., for Respondents. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ DATE : 14TH JULY, 2009 P.C. : Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking employment on compassionate ground in the place of her deceased husband. The petitioner is challenging the G.R., dated 23.4.2008 issued by the respondent State of Maharashtra by which the cut off age is made 40 years for the purpose of employment on 2 compassionate ground and by clause (c) of this G.R., the said decision of limit of 40 years age is made applicable retrospectively. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner made the representation to respondent no. 2 for employment on compassionate ground as she has lost her husband and she is having the responsibility of the entire family. Till the date of filing of the petition though she is shown in the waiting list, she could not be appointed due to want of vacancy. On 23.4.2008 the State Government issued G.R., by which the decision in G.R., dated 22.8.2005 prescribing the age limit of 40 years was made applicable retrospectively. The petitioner being aggrieved by the retrospective application of the G.R., has filed this petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the retrospective application of the said G.R., has adversely affected the petitioner and has deprived her of the right to be considered for the employment on compassionate ground which she could have got otherwise. The respondents have filed their affidavit in reply opposing this petition stating that in the year 1997, the petitioner was 37 years old and so today she is age barred. It is further stated that the petitioner even otherwise is not qualified for being considered for appointment to any post for want of vacancy and she is still in the waiting list, and her number is yet to reach for consideration. 3 4. The impugned G.R., issued by the respondent is a policy decision and putting maximum age limit of 40 years as an eligibility criterion stands to reason. Hence, we do not find any merit in this petition. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. ( J. N. PATEL, J) (SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J)