IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 944 WRIT PETITION NO.13803 OF 2025 SANDIP SARJERAO AMBAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Mr. S.A. Nagarsoge, Advocate for petitioner Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for respondent No.1 ... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 19th NOVEMBER, 2025 ORDER : . Heard learned Advocate appearing for petitioner. Learned AGP waives notice for respondent No.1. No necessity to issue notice to respondent No.2. 2 The petitioner has come with a case that his father late Sarjerao Ambad was working with respondent No.2 as Gramsevak. Unfortunately he expired on 27.11.2021. The petitioner was having qualification of H.S.C. and then submitted a proposal to respondent No.2 for his appointment on 2025:BHC-AUG:33274-DB 2 944_WP_13803_2025 compassionate ground. The rules and regulations have been framed by the authorities. Taking into consideration those existing rules and regulations as well as the guidelines given by the State authorities respondent No.2 issued the order of appointment in favour of petitioner on 02.09.2022 for the post of Peon. According to petitioner, there is Government Resolution of General Administration Department dated 23.08.1996, wherein clauses in the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground were changed and clause No.4 was promulgated thus - ^^4- xV ^d^ e/khy inkaoj vuqdaik rRokoj fu;qDrhlkBh ik= vl.kk&;k deZpk&;kyk inkP;k miyC/krsvHkkoh xV ^M^ e/khy inkaoj fu;qDrh fnY;kl in miyC/k gksrkp xV ^d^ e/khy inkoj R;kyk izk/kkU;kus fu;qDrh ns.;kr ;koh- v’kh fu;qDrh ljGlsok fu;qDrhus Hkj.;kr ;s.kk&;k inkaojhy let.;kr ;koh- ek= xV ^M^ e/khy inkoj vuqdaik ;kstusvUo;s fu;qDrh ns.;kP;k vkns’kkr rlk Li"V mYys[k dj.;kr ;kok] rls dj.;kr vkys vlsy rjp xV ^d^ e/khy inkoj fu;qDrh nsrk ;sbZy-^^ Now, the petitioner states that in the appointment order respondent No.2 ought to have mentioned the said clause No.4, however, when that has not been mentioned, the petitioner has no alternative but to knock the doors of this Court. 3 The first and the foremost fact that is required to be noted is that the petitioner has not produced on record copy of his application for 3 944_WP_13803_2025 appointment on the compassionate ground, whether any post for Group ‘C’ was not then available at that time, when he was appointed i.e. on 02.09.2022 and, therefore, he was offered post from Group ‘D’. If we peruse his appointment, it can be seen that it was his temporary appointment and he might have given the undertaking as per clause 1 of the appointment order to respondent No.2. The Government Resolution dated 23.08.1996 was there in existence when he was issued with the appointment order. Now, the petitioner wants to interpret in a different way. Further, it appears that another Government Resolution was issued by the Department of Village Development and Water Conservation, wherein note was taken that such term as per clause 4 was not written, wherein it is stated that inclusion of the said term is the responsibility of the appointing authority and if he does not make a mention about the same, then he would be held responsible. Now, time and again, the Government is issuing the resolutions which are binding on respondent No.2. Under such circumstance, there is no necessity to issue directions to respondent No.2 for incorporating the term 4. It appears that the petitioner and others had given representation to respondent No.2 on 13.06.2023 which has not been addressed or resolved by respondent No.2. We hope that respondent No.2 would consider the resolutions above stated and other resolutions on the same point and would decide the said representation. There is no prayer for directions to respondent No.2 to 4 944_WP_13803_2025 decide the said representation in a stipulated period; yet while rejecting the writ petition we direct respondent No.2 to decide the said representation dated 13.06.2023 within a period of one month from today. ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd