1 wp8649.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8649 OF 2009 Smt. Alka wd/o Chandrakant Deore .. petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents ------- Pravin S. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondents. ------ Coram: Smt. Nishita Mhatre & M.T. Joshi, JJ. Date : 15th June, 2011. P. C. 01. The petitioner has approached this court, contending that she should be appointed on compassionate grounds on the death of her husband, who was employed as a clerk in Girna Irrigation Division, Jalgaon. He expired on 2.8.2003. A representation was submitted by the Petitioner to the Collector for appointing her on compassionate grounds. 02. It appears that the petitioner's name was included in the list of persons to be appointed on compassionate grounds. However, she crossed the age of 40 years on 29.6.2006. Obviously, therefore, she could not have been appointed to any post after 29.6.2006. 03. An affidavit has been filed by the State, opposing the petition. The learned A.G.P. points out that by Government Resolution dated 6.12.2010, there has been a change in the policy and the upper age limit for appointing persons on compassionate grounds has been increased to 45 years from 40 years. 2 wp8649.09 04. In these circumstances, we direct that the petitioner, who has yet not completed 45 years of age, should be included in the list of persons to be appointed on compassionate grounds. 05. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be treated as having made the application in 2004 when her name was originally included in the list of persons to be appointed on compassionate grounds. He insists that an appointment order should be issued to the petitioner immediately, as on 29.6.2011, she would cross the age of 45 years. 06. It is not possible to concede to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly because the new policy has come into effect in 2010 by which time, the petitioner had already crossed the age limit of 40 years. Secondly, this court cannot direct the appointment of the petitioner as there may be other candidates in the waiting list included before the petitioner, whose applications may be pending consideration. Apart from this, the petitioner has been unable to point out that any person, whose name was included at lower serial number than her's, was, in fact, appointed before she crossed the age of 40 years. 07. Petition stands disposed of, accordingly. (M. T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/wp8649.09