1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4717 OF 2009 Smt. Neeta Govind Khadke } Age : 31 Years, Occ. : Nil, } R/o : At post Nilwande Rumbhodi, } Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through its Secretary } Irrigation Department } Mantralaya, Bombay - 32 } 2. The Superintending Engineer } Thane Irrigation Circle, Thane. } and Circle Officer, Irrigation Diision, } Bombay Circle, Thane, Dist. Thane } 3. The Superintending Engineer } Ghatghar Hydro-Electric Project } Circle Nashik, Nashik – 2. } 4. The Executive Engineer } Ghatghar Hydro-Electric Project } Division No. 3, Chonde, Tq.Shahapur} Dist. Thane. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.K.Shinde, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.J.Ghute Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. 2 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 23/03/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. We have heard Mr. S.K.Shinde, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. K.J.Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for State. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint her on any post as Class – IV employee on compassionate ground. The petitioner also prays for directing respondents to decide the application submitted by her seeking appointment on compassionate ground. 3. On notice of this petition being issued to respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply of Shri. Bapurao Rambhau Patil, Sub Divisional Officer, Ghatghar, Pumped Hydro-Electric Project, Sub Division No. 3, Bhandardara, Tq. Akole, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar it is stated at paragraph no. 4 as follows : 3 “ 4. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner was being considered as per the seniority in the list maintained. As per instructions in the said Government Resolution, 50 % of the candidates on the waiting list prior to 22/6/2005 were to be appointed on vacant post during the first year 2008 and out of the remaining 50 % candidates 25 % each were appointed in the next two years. It is submitted that following Government Resolution appointments are given to 5 candidates who were senior to the petitioner. Two candidates are appointed in Class – III who were also senior to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner would be eligible for appointment in Group D i.e. Class-IV Post in the year 2009, however, it is submitted that there are no vacancies available in group D ( Class IV ) in the office of the respondents due to absorption of the staff declared to be surplus on closure of 3 sub division and one division and, therefore, at present petitioner could not be appointed. However, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner will be considered on availability of vacancies by the competent authority ”. 4. In the light of averments in paragraph no. 4 that the case of the petitioner would be considered as per vacancies which are available, according to us, no further directions are necessary. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. 4 5. We, therefore, allow the petition and made Rule absolute in terms of the statement that the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground would be considered as per the availability of post. 6. Rule thus made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 4717.09 ( J )