1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION (W) NO.2453 OF 2011. IN WRIT PETITION NO.572 OF 2009. (Vasanta Anandrao Borje Vs. Maharashtra State Khadi and Village Industries Board, Mumbai) __________________________________________________________________________ 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. DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2011. Application is for early hearing. Heard finally. We have earlier heard the respective counsel on 12.10.2011 accordingly, and then matter was adjourned to 28.11.2011. On 28.112011 matter has been further adjourned to today. It appears that petitioner was interviewed by respondent for filling in backlog and his name was under consideration. Communication dated 26.12.2003 addressed to him reveals this position. However, he has not been given any appointment thereafter and therefore, present petition has been filed. Prayer is to direct respondent to consider petitioner for appointment as a Peon in Special Backward 2 Class. Respondent has relied upon policy decision of Government dated 01.08.2003 to urge that because of direction therein project affected persons and those eligible for compassionate employment have been given preference. With the assistance of the learned Counsel we have perused the resolution dated 01.08.2003. It has granted exemption to employer only if there was backlog but, then even while filling in backlog availability of candidates from that backward category from amongst mustering assistance and compassionate employment seekers, has been ordered to be considered. The respondent has pointed out that accordingly eight persons have been appointed on 31.05.2004 on compassionate employment also as project affected persons. The petitioner has received communication dated 13.10.2006 which discloses this position and that communication is annexed along with present petition. He however, has not impleaded those persons as party and also there is no effort to challenge the government directives dated 01.08.2003. Mode and manner in which the same have been alleged to be violated because of these eight appointments is also not pleaded. We therefore, do not see any reason to interfere in the matter. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE NSN