1 WP 8708.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8708 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. S.B.Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. N.B.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. ......................... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 17/11/2011. PER COURT : 1. The petitioner impugns the order passed by the Jt. Civil Judge ( Sr. Division ), Osmanabad allowing the application ( Exh. 81 ) filed by the present respondent. Vide the impugned order, the trial Court has directed the defendant no. 2 to accept the application if submitted by the plaintiff no. 1 for appointment on compassionate ground. At the same time, the trial Court has protected the interest of the petitioner by further directing that the defendant no. 2 shall take appropriate decision on the said application after the final Judgment and disposal of the present Suit. 2. Mr. Choudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner 2 WP 8708.2011 submits that the plaintiff no. 1 is not entitled for the said relief of appointment on compassionate ground. The plaintiff no. 1 has no locus standi. The heirship certificate has been issued in favour of the present petitioner, which is not challenged by any one and the same has become final. In view of that, the plaintiff no. 1 can not claim any right to get appointment on compassionate ground. The trial Court could not have passed such an order. 3. The impugned order in no way affects the rights of the present petitioner. The trial Court has safe-guarded the rights of the present petitioner by further putting rider that the decision on the said application shall be taken after the final decision in the Suit. In such circumstances, the said order in no way prejudices the petitioner. The Court has yet to decide upon the merits of the matter which the Court would be doing after the parties adduced their evidence. 4. In light of the above, no interference is called for. 5. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 8708.2011 3 WP 8708.2011