1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6131 OF 2009 1) Jaychand s/o Sopan Chiwade, R/o- At Post-Kawha, Tq. & Dist-Latur, 2) Venkatesh s/o Raghunath Dande, R/o-Khadgaon Road, Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur, 3) Panchshila d/o Limbaji Kamble, R/o-Panchincholi, Tq-Nilanga, Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. F.R. Tandale Advocate for Petitioners. Shri. R.P. Phatke, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri. V.D. Hon Advocate for Respondent No.3. Shri. N.D. Sonawane Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 6 to 13. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 30TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioners' contend that they were appointed on compassionate ground in Class-IV category as per the Government Resolution dated 23rd August, 1996. The grievance of the Petitioners is that some persons junior to the Petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground in Class- III category by way of promotion. The Petitioners annexed some appointment orders. The Petitioners have also made such employees as Respondents to the Petition. The Petitioners further placed reliance on the communication made by Chief Executive Officer, Latur to the Secretary Rural Development Department dated 20th March, 2009. 3. In substance, the contention of the 3 Petitioners is, that for the reasons best known to the Authorities, in some cases appointment on compassionate ground were issued placing the persons in Class-III category and some persons in Class-IV category. This discretion was exercised unreasonably. The Petitioners' prospects of promotion, absorption, appointment to Class-III category are therefore affected and serious prejudice has been caused to the Petitioners. 4. We may refer to our Order passed in Writ Petition No.3609 of 2009 dated 28th June, 2010, wherein identical issue in respect of Government Resolution dated 23rd August 1996, was dealt with by us. This is a glaring case which demonstrates anxiety of the Petitioners and apprehension as to why the Petitioners were not placed in Class-III category and what are the reasons wherein some candidates were placed in Class-III category while appointments were made on compassionate ground. 5. Needless to mention that the principles 4 governing the appointment on compassionate ground are well settled by the Apex Court in the catena of Judgments. (Ref:- 1) Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Anil Badyakar (2009) 13 S.C.C. 112, 2) State of Chhattisgarh vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar (2009) 13 S.C.C. 600 3) Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan vs. Laxmi Devi (2009) 7 S.C.C. 205 4) Santosh Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. (2009) 6 S.C.C. 481). 6. By earlier order passed in Writ Petition No.3609 of 2009, dated 28th June 2010, we had directed the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department and the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department to look into the matter. We had already observed in the order passed by us in Writ Petition No.3609 of 2009, dated 28th June 2010, that the State would take a comprehensive policy decision in this regard and issue appropriate instructions/ directions to all the Chief Executive Officers through out the State. 5 7. We direct the State Government through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department and the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department to consider all the Government Resolutions, more particularly Government Resolution dated 23rd August 1996 and the Apex Court Judgments and thereafter take policy decision and issue appropriate directions so as to follow consistent policy in respect of appointment of persons on compassionate grounds. 8. In the facts of the case, we are not inclined to allow the request of the Petitioners that as some other employees appointed on compassionate ground were absorbed in Class-III category therefore they should also be absorbed in Class-III category. Appointment on compassionate ground has to be in tune with the principles enunciated by the Apex Court. In this view of the matter, in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution 6 of India, the Petition cannot be entertained. The Writ Petition is dismissed. . Authenticated copy of this order be provided to the learned A.G.P. The learned A.G.P. to forward copy of this order to the the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department and the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JUNE10/wp6131.09