FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5962 OF 2011 " Manda Bapurao Gadekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent No.1. Mr. Dilip Patil Bankar, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE :- 16TH DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for giving appointment on compassionate ground. 3] Petitioner's father was in service of respondent No.2 Zilla Parishad and he was declared medically unfit on 6th October, 2000 and, therefore, was discontinued by the respondent No.2 from services. The petitioner accordingly, applied for grant of appointment on compassionate ground on 30.11.2011. The petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 67 in the waiting list. Since the petitioner has not been given appointment order the petitioner has approached this court. 4] In the affidavit in rely, the basic ground raised on behalf of the respondent No.2 is that since petitioner is the married daughter of the employee who was in their employment, FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5962 OF 2011 " Manda Bapurao Gadekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 she would not be entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. 5] The issue is no more res-integra. The Division Bench of this court, in the case of “Aparna Zambre Vs. Assistant Superintendent Engineer, Sangli and others, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the matter of “ Dr. Vijaya Manohar Arbat Vs. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai”, reported in 1987 Mh.L.J. 395, has held that the appointment cannot be denied to a married daughter merely because she is a married daughter of the employee who was in employment. 6] It is undisputed that employment is denied to the petitioner only on the ground that she is a married daughter. In that view of the matter , we are inclined to allow the petition. 7] Writ petition is allowed. Since the petitioner is already put on waiting list, we direct the respondents to give appointment to her within a period of 6 weeks from today, on a post commensurate with her suitability and eligibility. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs. [A.V. POTDAR,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-