1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3426 OF 2007 Bhimashankar S/o Ganpat Tambve.. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others.. .. Respondents Shri N. B. Patode, Advocate h/f Shri D. J. Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1 and 3. Shri S. A. Nagargoje, Advocate h/f Shri N. L. Jadhave, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Shri Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 28TH APRIL, 2010. ORAL ORDER [Per NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] : . Heard. 2 2. The petitioner's father was in service with respondent No. 4. He died on 22nd March, 2002. The petitioner's mother initially applied with the respondent No. 4 in July 2002 for appointing her on compassionate ground. As she was over aged, she could not be appointed. The petitioner was minor at that crucial time. After petitioner became major, he applied for compassionate appointment. 3. Affidavit in reply is filed by the respondent No. 4. In affidavit in reply para 13 the respondent No. 4 contends as under : "13. The deponent states that he is ready to consider the request of petitioner for compassionate appointment on appropriate post in due course of time as and when post will be available in the school." It is seen that, the respondent No. 4 is ready to consider the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, when the appropriate post will be available. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was forced to make endorsement on the application 3 that he is not willing to join the post which was available at that time. We need not enter into the merits of allegations now. According to learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 approval is also granted by the respondent No. 3/Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed. In the light of above, the petitioner's case be considered on its own merits on next available vacancy of the post of peon. The petitioner be heard before any final decision is taken and the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/April.10