MAHEK LAXMAN PUSOLLUversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                    (1)                     23-WP-8600-2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   23 WRIT PETITION NO. 8600 OF 2021

Mahek Laxman Pusollu                                 ...Petitioner
      VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others                  ...Respondents
                                    ...
Mr. Vitthal G. Salgare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. R. M. Bhagwat h/f Mr. G. P. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
                                  CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                             JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

                                  DATE     : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026.

PC :-

1.      Heard Mr. Salgare, the learned Advocate for the petitioner,

Mr. Wani, the learned AGP for Respondent/State and Mr. Bhagwat h/f

Mr. Shinde, the learned Advocate for Respondent No.5.


2.      A short grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that though

the petitioner is appointed on compassionate ground on class-IV post, he

has not been given an appointment or promotion on class-III post

considering his qualifications.
                                   (2)                     23-WP-8600-2021




3.    The facts in short are that the father of the petitioner was working

as “Kamathi” with Respondent No.5 which happens to be class-IV post.

He unfortunately died on 20/02/2016. The petitioner applied for

compassionate appointment in place of his father. However, his

application was rejected by respondent No.5 on the ground that the post

to which the petitioner’s father was appointed is abolished and further

that he was taken into service as special case with condition that after

his retirement, the post would be abolished. The petitioner therefore was

required to approach this Court by filing WP/9334/2017. This Court

vide judgment and order dated 02/12/2019 directed respondent No.5 to

give appointment to the petitioner to any class-IV post. After the decision

in the writ petition, the petitioner came to be appointed to the post of

Safai Kamgar by respondent No.5 on 30/09/2020.


4.    Now, it is the case of the petitioner that in view of Government

Resolution dated 23/08/1996, the petitioner be given an appointment or

promotion to class-III post as the petitioner possesses qualifications as

H.S.C. and MS-CIT. He has also passed typing examination in English

and Marathi. The petitioner is thus qualified to be appointed to any
                                    (3)                     23-WP-8600-2021




class-III post on the basis of this Government Resolution. Petitioner also

relies upon judgment in the case of Shanti Devi and Ors. Vs. State of

Haryana1 wherein the persons were given appointments to class-III posts

on    compassionate     grounds.    The    petitioner,   therefore,   made

representation. However, the same has not been considered and thus the

petitioner has approached this Court.


5.    Mr. Salgare, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, vehemently

argued that by giving benefit of Government Resolution dated

20/08/1993 and looking to the qualifications of the petitioner, he ought

to have been promoted to a class-III post. He also relied upon

Government decision dated 11/07/2019. He submits that a person can

be appointed to a class-III post even on compassionate grounds, if such

person is possesses requisite qualifications.


6.    Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits that when the

petitioner had approached this Court in earlier round, it was specific

case of the respondent that as there is no class-III post available, the

petitioner could be considered only for class-IV posts. His appointment
1 MANU/PH/1919/1992
                                     (4)                      23-WP-8600-2021




on class-IV post was thus only for the reason that there was no

substantive post available in class-III category. He further relied upon

judgment in the case of Phoolwati Vs. Union of India and Ors . in

CA/5967/1990 dated 05/12/1990, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court

directed the respondent to give an appointment to the applicant to any

suitable post commensurate with his educational qualifications within a

period of one month from the date of this order. He thus submits that

this is a fit case to direct respondent to appoint petitioner to any class-III

post.


7.      Learned Advocate for the respondent No.5 vehemently opposed

the petition. He submits that the petitioner has accepted an appointment

to a class-IV post, and therefore, there is no question to appoint him

again on class-III post. Merely because, he possesses the qualifications

for a higher post would not be sufficient to appoint him in class-III post.

The petitioner has already accepted the appointment order dated

30/09/2020 for a class-IV post without any grievance. He again now

claimed any appointment to class-III post.           His representation is

therefore not considered. He relied upon the judgment in CA/12640-
                                   (5)                    23-WP-8600-2021




12643/2025 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the

Director of Town Panchayat and Ors. Vs. M. Jayabal and Anr. Etc. . He

thus submits that having once accepted one post, the petitioner cannot

claim a higher post thereafter.


8.    This Court has considered the submissions of both the parties.

Undisputedly, when the petitioner filed earlier petition, he had prayed

that he be appointed to any class-III or class-IV post, as is appearing in

paragraph No.1 of the judgment in WP/9334/2017. That time also a

question of qualification was considered by the Court. However, in the

operative order, the Court clearly directed the respondents to absorb the

petitioner on any class-IV post after completing necessary formalities

under the Government Resolution. It is clearly seen that no grievance

was made while accepting class-IV post. It is only on 10/02/2021, the

petitioner made a representation to give him an appointment on class III

post. The Government decision dated 23/08/1996 provides that the

upgradation of a post of person appointed even on compassionate

grounds, making it clear that in the appointment order itself, there

should be a specific mention that whenever class-III post is become
                                      (6)                       23-WP-8600-2021




available, the person would be entitled to get a promotion or

appointment to a class-III post.


9.    So far as judgment in the case of Phoolwati (supra) is concerned,

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the order itself has directed to grant an

appointment to a class-III post. This judgment would not help the

petitioner. So far as judgment in the case of Shanti Devi and Ors. Vs.

State of Haryana (supra), in the judgment itself it was made clear that

the petitioner cannot be considered for a higher post in case rule permit

and even rule does not permit by relaxing the rules.


10.   So far as judgment in the case of the Director of Town Panchayat

and Ors. (supra), paragraph No.10 reads as under:-

      “10. In view of the law laid down by this Court, it stands clarified
      that the once the right of an applicant to be considered for
      appointment on compassionate grounds has been consummated,
      no further consideration is warranted. Once dependent of a
      deceased employee is offered employment on compassionate basis,
      his right stood exercised. Thereafter, no question arises for seeking
      appointment on a higher post. Otherwise, it would be a case of
      ‘endless compassion’.”

11.   From this judgment, it is clear that once a person has exercised the

right of appointment, there is no question of further consideration for
                                          (7)                   23-WP-8600-2021




any higher post. In the present case also, having exercised the option of

appointment on compassionate grounds, the petitioner thereafter cannot

make a further prayer for another post. Thus, this Court finds no merit

in the petition. Writ petition stands dismissed.



12.          At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioner placed on

record a Government Resolution dated 08/07/2008 wherein it is

provided that a class-IV employee can be appointed to a class-III post by

promotion. Such promotion is to be given on 25% of class-III posts. If

the representation is made by the petitioner, the same can always be

considered with all other aspects. The petitioner can always seek

promotion, if he is otherwise eligible for a class-III post.


13.          With these, writ petition stands disposed off.



    [JITENDRA JAIN, J.]                            [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
D.A.ETHAPE