Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Smt. Swati Ankush Borde (widow) and Swaraj Ankush Borde (son), filed a writ petition challenging the communication dated 26.03.2019 by the Zilla Parishad, Jalna, which cancelled the substitution of Swaraj's name in place of Swati in the list of eligible candidates for compassionate appointment. The deceased employee, Ankush Borde, died on 14.01.2011 while working as a Gram Sevak. Within ten days, Swati applied for compassionate appointment and her name was entered in the list. On 17.01.2014, Swati nominated her minor son Swaraj (then aged 14) by substitution, and his name was recorded. On 20.05.2015, the Government of Maharashtra issued a Government Resolution (G.R.) which, under Clause 1(c), prohibited substitution. On 26.03.2019, the Zilla Parishad cancelled the substitution, prompting the petition. Meanwhile, on 08.07.2019, Swati accepted an appointment as Peon. The court framed the issue of whether the G.R. could be applied retrospectively to cancel a substitution made before its issuance. The petitioners argued that the substitution was valid when made and the G.R. operates prospectively. The respondents contended that the G.R. prohibited substitution and the son was a minor at the time. The court held that the G.R. dated 20.05.2015 cannot have retrospective effect and cannot cancel the substitution made on 17.01.2014. The court also noted that the son had since attained majority and could be considered for appointment. The court quashed the communication dated 26.03.2019 and directed the Zilla Parishad to maintain Swaraj's name in the wait list. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Compassionate Appointment - Substitution - Government Resolution - Prospective Effect - The court considered whether a Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015 prohibiting substitution could be applied to cancel a substitution made on 17.01.2014, prior to the resolution. Held that the resolution operates prospectively and cannot affect substitutions made before its issuance. (Paras 1-10) B) Compassionate Appointment - Minor Nominee - Eligibility - The court examined whether a minor son could be nominated for compassionate appointment. The court noted that the son was nominated at age 14 and later attained majority; the appointment was to be offered only after he became major. Held that the nomination was valid and the son's name could remain in the wait list. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the substitution of the name of the son in place of the widow in the list of eligible candidates for compassionate appointment, made prior to the Government Resolution prohibiting substitution, can be cancelled retrospectively.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The communication dated 26.03.2019 is quashed and set aside. The Zilla Parishad is directed to maintain the name of petitioner no.2 Swaraj in the wait list for compassionate appointment.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- substitution
- government resolution
- prospective effect
- vested right
- minor nominee
