(1) wp1010-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1010 OF 2011 Sarla wd/o Shekhar Chavan @ Sarla d/o Abhiman Patil PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.R. Dhepale, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, advocate for the respondent No. 3. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 6th SEPTEMBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. The petitioner was required to approach this Court since the respondent No. 4 had not appointed the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Shekhar Ranganath Chavan was working as an Assistant Teacher in a school run by the respondent No. 4. He died on 16th October, 2009. Thereafter, the petitioner had made an application to the respondent No. 4 for her appointment as Shikshan Sevak on compassionate grounds. In the meantime, the respondent No. 4 had (2) wp1010-11 also published an advertisement on 15th September, 2010, for filling up the post of Shikshan Sevak. Since the petitioner was duly qualified for the said post, she had applied for the same. However, according to the respondent No. 4, she did not qualify in the interview and as such, was not selected. 2. On the last date, when the matter was heard, a query was put to learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 as to whether there is requirement of holding the interview in the case of appointment on compassionate grounds. The learned counsel had sought time to take instructions in the matter. It appears that with the good offices of Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, a better counsel has prevailed upon the respondent No. 4 to issue an appointment order in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Sakolkar has placed on record a copy of the appointment order issued in favour of the petitioner (marked "X" for identification purposes). Mr. Sakolkar, learned counsel, further states that the petitioner has also (3) wp1010-11 been permitted to join her services. The Court appreciates the efforts taken by Mr. V.G. Sakolkar in getting justice to the unfortunate petitioner who has lost her husband. 3. In view of the subsequent developments, stated hereinabove, nothing survives in this petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of with above observations. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] npj/wp1010-11