(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4428 OF 2009 Kanchan w/o Pradeep Kolhe, Age 32 years, Occu.Nil, r/o. Santajinagar, Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Through Principal Secretary Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Collector, Jalgaon. 3. The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 4. The Chairman, Chopda Education Society Chopda. 5. The Head Master, Chopda Education Society Pratap Vidya Mandir, Primary School, Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. P.B.Patil, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. R.P.Phatke, Additional G.P., for respondent State. Mr.M.K.Goyanka, Adv., for respondent no.3. Mr. R.R.Mantri, Counsel for respondent no.4,5. ... (2) CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 11th NOVEMBER, 2009. *** PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner's husband admittedly worked as a Teacher with respondent no.5 institution. During the period of service, he died due to ailment in the year 2006. The petitioner claims to be a widow of the decease employee and hence applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The Petitioner claims to have even filed an application with the Collector and the management but, so far, has not received any communication from either of the authorities. Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 3. Affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5. Shri Mantri, Counsel appearing for the management, submitted that after the death of husband an amount of Rs.1,06,200/- as death gratuity is received by the petitioner and she is getting monthly basic pension of Rs.4425/- plus Dearness Allowance. In the submission of the Counsel, the petitioner would be getting pension of about Rs.7000/- per month under VIth Pay Commission recommendations. In addition to the same, the Counsel submitted that the institution does not envisage any vacancy in the coming years and, apart from these issues, the Counsel further submitted that (3) the management considered the case of the petitioner from all angles and reached a conclusion that the petitioner cannot be accommodated and appointed as a candidate on compassionate ground. Counsel placed reliance on the reported judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Chhatisgarh and others V. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar ( AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2568). 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that getting terminal benefits, pension or property is no ground to deny appointment. The Government policy is clear in this regard. It was further submitted that no sooner the husband died, immediately thereafter, an application for appointment was filed. Even that application is pending with the Collector. 5. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, perused relevant reply and the documents placed on record. 6. The principle of appointment of persons on compassionate is again reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Chhatisgarh and others (cited supra). In paragraph Nos.15 and 17 the Apex Court observed: "15. Appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Nobody can claim appointment by way of inheritance. In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Madhusudan Das and Ors. [2008 (15) SCALE 39], this Court held: (4) "...This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefor, viz., that the death of the sole bread earner of the family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right." "17. This Court, times without number, has held that appointment on compassionate ground should not be granted as a matter of course. It should be granted only when dependents of the deceased-employee who expired all of a sudden while being in service and by reason thereof his dependents have been living in penury. ... ..." 7. We have considered the case of the petitioner keeping in view the principle behind appointment of persons on compassionate ground. 8. The petitioner's case was individually considered by the management on certain grounds which are reflected in the affidavit in reply and thereafter the management reached conclusion and showed its inability to accommodate the petitioner on compassionate ground. There is no dispute on the principle that the compassionate appointments are not to be sought as of right but they are offered to the (5) dependent as an exception to the Rule of appointment. The Apex Court has, in clear terms, stated that Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the post which have fallen vacant. 9. In the light of the reasons stated above, no interference is called for. Petition is dismissed. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H.PATIL, J.] ... agp/wp4428-09