Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shubham Ishrawat, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for compassionate appointment. His father, Surendra Kumar Ishrawat, a Headmaster with Zilla Parishad, Gondia, died on 07.08.2012 while on duty. The petitioner's mother, Sangita, applied for compassionate appointment on 06.12.2012 and her name was included in the waiting list. However, no appointment was made during 2012-2028. On 13.10.2016, Sangita requested substitution of her son's name in the waiting list. The petitioner also made a representation. On 02.02.2017, the respondents replied that there is no provision for substitution, and Sangita's name was deleted from the waiting list as she had attained the age of 45 years and was no longer eligible under the policy. The petitioner contended that the respondents neglected their proposal, violating the scheme of compassionate appointment. The respondents denied the contentions, stating no provision for substitution exists. The court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition, holding that there is no provision for substitution of name in the compassionate appointment policy, and the petitioner's claim cannot be entertained.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Substitution of Name - No Provision - The petitioner sought substitution of his name in the waiting list for compassionate appointment after his mother's name was deleted due to age. The court held that there is no provision in the policy for substitution of name, and the claim cannot be considered. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to substitution of his name in the waiting list for compassionate appointment after his mother's name was deleted due to age, in the absence of any provision for substitution in the policy.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- substitution of name
- waiting list
- policy interpretation
- no vested right
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (10) 200
Writ Petition No. 3187 of 2022
Avinash G. Gharote, Urmila Joshi-Phalke
Ms. Naziya Pathan for petitioner, Mr. Zaheer h/f Mr. Abhijit Parihar for respondent Nos.2 and 4, Mr. M. K Pathan AGP for respondent/State
Shubham S/o Surendra Kumar Ishrawat
State of Maharashtra, Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Gondia, Collector Gondia, Block Development Officer Panchayat Samiti Aamgaon
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking direction for compassionate appointment
Remedy Sought
Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment by substituting his name in the waiting list
Filing Reason
Respondents refused to substitute petitioner's name in the waiting list for compassionate appointment after his mother's name was deleted due to age
Previous Decisions
Respondents replied on 02.02.2017 that there is no provision for substitution and mother's name was deleted due to age
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to substitution of his name in the waiting list for compassionate appointment after his mother's name was deleted due to age, in the absence of any provision for substitution in the policy.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: Respondents neglected the proposal for appointment on compassionate ground, which is in contravention of the legitimate right and dehors the scheme of compassionate appointment.
Respondents: There is no provision in the policy for substitution of name; the mother's name was deleted as she attained age 45 and is no longer eligible.
Ratio Decidendi
There is no provision in the compassionate appointment policy for substitution of name. The claim of the petitioner cannot be considered as the mother's name was deleted due to age, and no vested right exists.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, the petitioner is seeking the direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the present petitioner for the compassionate appointment.
On 02.02.2017 reply was given to the petitioner’s mother contended that there is no provision for substitution of name.
The respondent Nos.2 and 4 denied the entire contentions of the petitioners on the ground that there is no provision in the policy of the substitution.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3187 of 2022 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The matter was heard finally by consent of parties on 30.08.2023 and judgment pronounced on 03.10.2023.
