1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 5161 /2010 (Ku.Lata Moreshwar Shivankar vs. State of Maharashtra and another ) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JULY 14, 2011. Heard Advocate Jibhkate, for the petitioner; Advocate Kapgate for Respondent No.2 as also learned AGP Jaiswal, for respondent No.1. We find that the petitioner has challenged reply to notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code in the present matter. However, looking to the nature of controversy we have entertained the petition subject to her counsel paying costs of Rs. 500/-. to the High Court Legal Service Sub-Committee, Nagpur. The other grievance appears to be non- consideration of claim of petitioner for Class III post on compassionate grounds. Mr. Jibhkate states that juniors to petitioner earlier appointed in Class IV category, have been later on absorbed in Class III posts and only exception has been carved out in the case of the petitioner. However, the learned counsel is unable to show any express order by which the 2 claim of the petitioner has been considered and rejected. Mr Kapgate, learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that as on the relevant date, the petitioner was not holding the necessary educational qualifications, she could not be given Class III post. According to Mr Jibhkate, the communication dated 9th April,2007 issued by the State Government is in favour of petitioner. As we do not see any express order rejecting the claim of the petitioner, we direct the respondent no.2 to consider her entitlement in accordance with law particularly in view of the fact that persons junior to her have been absorbed against Class III posts. Appropriate decision in this respect shall be taken as early as possible and, in any case, within a period of two months after the petitioner appears for hearing before the respondent no.2. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent no.2 on 22 nd August, 2011 and abide by his further instructions. Petition is, thus, disposed of with the above directions. JUDGE JUDGE sahare