JUDGMENT - THAKKER C.K., C.J.:---By invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court directing Maharashtra State Electricity Board ("M.S.E.B." for short) to take both the petitioners or in the alternative one of the petitioners in service on compassionate ground commensurate to their/his educational qualifications. 2.The case of the petitioners is that both the petitioners are sons of one Madhusudan Patil, who was serving with the respondent No. 2 who died in an accident on 5th November, 1975 while on duty. As Madhusudan Patil died while he was on duty, an application was made by his widow to give her appointment on compassionate ground. It appears that the said application was granted and the widow of the deceased Madhusudan Patil was offered an appointment. She, however, refused the offer because of family circumstances. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter an application was made by the petitioners on 1st November, 1990 and again on 18th January, 1996 praying for giving an appointment on compassionate ground. The grievance of the petitioners is that neither the petitioners had been offered appointment nor their application had been decided. 3.The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that as per policy of M.S.E.B., the cases of the petitioners ought to have been considered for compassionate appointment keeping in view the decision of the M.S.E.B. providing that such application could be made by heirs of deceased employee within a period of five years of attaining age of majority. In the instant case, such application had been given within the stipulated period by the petitioners after attaining majority. Non-consideration of such application, therefore, is illegal and appropriate directions are required to be issued. 4.The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed as the petitioners are not entitled to appointment. It was stated that as reflected in the affidavit in reply of the Executive Engineer of M.S.E.B., after death of Madhusudan Patil, prayer for giving appointment on compassionate ground by his widow came to be considered by M.S.E.B., and appointment was offered to her. It was the widow of the deceased Madhusudan Patil who refused appointment. It was stated that as reflected in the affidavit in reply of the Executive Engineer of M.S.E.B., after death of Madhusudan Patil, prayer for giving appointment on compassionate ground by his widow came to be considered by M.S.E.B., and appointment was offered to her. It was the widow of the deceased Madhusudan Patil who refused appointment. In view of such refusal by her, neither the widow nor the petitioners can make grievance against the action of M.S.E.B. 5.Regarding applications of petitioners, it was stated that those applications were not considered as it was not policy of M.S.E.B. to consider such applications as contended by the petitioners. The policy with regard to making of application within the period of five years after attaining majority came to be introduced for the first time in 1997, whereas Madhusudan Patil died in 1975. In the circumstances, the said policy decision would not apply in the case of petitioners. 6.In our opinion, the action taken by the respondent cannot be said to be illegal or otherwise improper. Since the widow of Madhusudan Patil was offered appointment and she refused such appointment, may be for some family reasons, M.S.E.B. cannot be blamed. As the case of the petitioners could not be considered as policy with regard to consideration of appointment after attaining age of majority came to be introduced in 1997, the action of the respondents in not considering the applications of the petitioners is neither illegal nor improper. 7.For the foregoing reasons, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----