Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Musaddique Ahmad Khan, is the son of a deceased Assistant Teacher, Muqaddar Khan Mumtaz Khan, who died in harness on 2 September 2015. The petitioner's mother applied for compassionate appointment on 5 January 2016, which was reiterated on 24 January 2017. After follow-ups, the petitioner was asked to submit documents, including birth certificates of children. The claim was rejected on 25 June 2020 by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati, citing Clause-E of Government Resolution dated 28 March 2001, which provides that if a third child is born to the employee after 31 December 2001, the family is not entitled to compassionate appointment. The petitioner challenged the order and the clause as unconstitutional under Article 14. The court heard arguments from both sides. The respondents argued that the classification is reasonable and based on a policy to discourage large families. The court held that the classification is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object of promoting family planning. The provision does not violate Article 14. The petition was dismissed, and the order rejecting compassionate appointment was upheld.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Reasonable Classification - Clause-E of Government Resolution dated 28-3-2001 - The court considered whether the classification based on the birth of a third child after 31-12-2001 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The court held that the classification is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object of promoting family planning and discouraging large families. The provision does not violate Article 14. (Paras 6-8)
B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Government Resolution dated 28-3-2001 - Clause-E - The court examined the validity of the condition that if a third child is born to the employee after 31-12-2001, the family is not entitled to compassionate appointment. The court held that the condition is a valid policy decision and not unconstitutional. The petitioner's claim was rejected as his father had a third child after the cut-off date. (Paras 2-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Clause-E of Government Resolution dated 28-3-2001, which denies compassionate appointment to families where a third child is born after 31-12-2001, is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The order dated 25-6-2020 rejecting compassionate appointment is upheld. Clause-E of Government Resolution dated 28-3-2001 is held constitutional and not violative of Article 14.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Government Resolution
- third child norm
- Article 14
- constitutional validity
- rational classification
- family planning policy
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (04) 114
WRIT PETITION NO. 3227 OF 2022
ROHIT B. DEO, MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI
Mr. Raheel Mirza (for petitioner), Mrs. Ketki Joshi (Addl.G.P. for respondents 1 and 2), Mr. S.A. Mohta (for respondent 3)
Musaddique Ahmad Khan s/o Muqaddar Khan
The State of Maharashtra, Divisional Commissioner, Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Amravati, Education Officer Zilla Parishad Amravati, Block Education Officer Panchayat Samitee Achalpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the rejection of compassionate appointment and the constitutional validity of a government resolution clause.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 25-6-2020 rejecting compassionate appointment and declaration that Clause-E of Government Resolution dated 28-3-2001 is unconstitutional.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's father died in harness; his mother applied for compassionate appointment, which was rejected because a third child was born after 31-12-2001.
Previous Decisions
The claim for compassionate appointment was rejected by order dated 25-6-2020 by respondent 3.
Issues
Whether Clause-E of Government Resolution dated 28-3-2001 is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Clause-E is arbitrary and violates Article 14 as it discriminates based on the number of children.
Respondents argued that the classification is reasonable and based on a policy to discourage large families and promote family planning.
Ratio Decidendi
The classification in Clause-E of Government Resolution dated 28-3-2001, which denies compassionate appointment to families where a third child is born after 31-12-2001, is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object of promoting family planning and discouraging large families. It does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is assailing the order dated 25-6-2020 issued by respondent 3-Chief Executive Officer and Clause-E of the Government Resolution dated 28-3-2001, on the premise that the said clause is unconstitutional and falls foul of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The learned Counsel for the respondents would invite our attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1040 of 2018 (Smt. Pramila wd/o Rajendra Bawane vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) decided on 18-12-2018, which has upheld the constitutional validity of Clause-E of the Government Resolution dated 28-3-2001.
Procedural History
The petitioner's father died on 2-9-2015. The mother applied for compassionate appointment on 5-1-2016, reiterated on 24-1-2017. After follow-ups, the claim was rejected on 25-6-2020. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3227 of 2022 challenging the order and the clause. The petition was heard and dismissed on 19-4-2023.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 14
