Nazema Begum Rashid Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5756 Bom

                                             {1}
                                                                           WP 4250.16.odt

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                               
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 4250 OF 2016




                                                       
                               NAZEMA BEGUM RASHID KHAN
                                           VERSUS
                         THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                             ...




                                                      
                        Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. M.M.Chaudhari
                       AGP for respondents : Mr. K.N. Lokhande, AGP


                                             ...




                                           
                               ig          CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
                                                   K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2016.

PER COURT:

1] The petitioner is praying for issuance of directions to the

respondents to set aside the order passed by the respondent No.2 on

26.11.2015 thereby refusing appointment to the petitioner on compassionate

ground. The petitioner has made several allegations against the respondent

No.3 - Dean, Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, in para. 18 of

the writ petition alleging malafides.

2] An affidavit in reply has been presented on behalf of the

respondents wherein, it has been stated that since the father of the

petitioner was initially appointed in Class IV post of Peon and not as Safai

Kamgar and he retired on superannuation, the benefits of the Lad-Page

Committee are not applicable to the case of the father of the petitioner.

Father of the petitioner, according to the appointing Authority, was never

{2} WP 4250.16.odt

given appointment as Safai Kamgar and as such, petitioner is not entitled to

be appointed under the Scheme. It is further pointed in the affidavit in

reply that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by presenting

W.P. Nos. 6116 of 2008 and 6122 of 2008 claiming appointment on

compassionate ground. This Court, vide order dated 14.11.2008 allowed the

petitioner to withdraw the petitions. It is further pointed out that since the

petitioner's father retired on superannuation, she is not entitled to claim

benefit of appointment on compassionate ground. So far as the allegations

in respect of malafides are concerned, those are anwered in para. 7 of the

affidavit in reply, which read thus :-

7. I say and submit that, the respondents are specifically denying the baseless allegation made by

the petitioner in writ petition in pare no. 12 to 18. I

say and submit that allegation that the respondents have not maintained the seniority list is not true and correct. The respondents have maintained and

followed the seniority as per the application. I say and submit that the committee formed for the appointment under Lad-page scheme, verified the documents of the candidates in accordance with

Government Resolution dated 10.11.2015 and has issued appointment orders to the eligible candidates.

8. I say and submit that as per the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ petition No. 11407/2010 Shri. Shaikh Akram Shaikh Saleem and Smt. Nasreenbi Moin Baig have been appointment on Class-IV Safai Kamgar post. I say that Mother of Shaikh Jamir Shaikh

{3} WP 4250.16.odt

Karim was working on Safai Kamgar post therefore he

has been appointed as a Class IV safai Kamgar Post on 19/01/2016. Similarly Shafiq Baig Lal Baig is

appointed as a Class IV Safai Kamgar on 19/01/2016 as his father joined and retired on Safai Kamgar post. I say and submit the committee has verified the

documents of the 13 candidates detailed in para no. 12 of the aforesaid writ petition as per G.R. dated 10.11.2015 and has issued appointment orders to the

eligible candidates.

I say and submit that Shaikh Zameer Sk. Kareem and Shafik baig lal baig found eligible for appointment

so appointment by the committee and hence they were issued appointment order.

10. I say and submit that the employee Shri Ranjeet

sing Banvarilal chavan died on 16/10/1995, her wife

namely Smt. Gendabai Ranjeet Chavan had given application requesting that appointment to be given to Sunil Dariyashing Chavan instead of Krishnabai

Indarsing Bhumbak therefore commiettee as per government Resolution dated 26/02/2014 has issued appointment to Sunil Dariyashing Chavan. I say that as per order dated 06/05/2015 Hon'ble High Court and as

per Lad-Page scheme appointment is given to Sk. Shakeel Ks.. It is submitted that as per the nomination of the retired employee Smt. Khutujabee appointment is given to the Shri. S. K. Ahmed Sk. Khurshid.

11. I say and submit that as per the application given by the employee Smt. Anarkali Dyachand Gagat appointment has been given to Sandeep Ramphal

{4} WP 4250.16.odt

Gangat. In the case of Afsarbaig Habid baig it is

submitted that, on 25/02/2008 he had given application however his name was not taken in the list

therefore verifying the entitlement committee has given appointment on 11/12/2014. It is submitted that Akbar baig Munwar Baig is appointed on the post

of Sadar Bee Muneer Baig. Whereas Sk. Shakeel Sk. Jaleel is appointed on the post of Sk. Jaleel Sk. Ahmed therefroe there is not substance in the allegation that

they are appointed on one and the same post.

I say that the relatives of the employee that Raja baig Bandu baig have given in written affidavit

that appointment be given to Kaisarbaig Anwar Baig accordingly as per the relevant G. R. and as per affidavit, appointment is given to Kaisar baig Anwar Baig. It is submitted that name of Rahman Baig

Mannyu baig is not appearing in the list of government

Medical College and Hospital, Auragangabad, establishment and matter of Sk. Akram Sk. Ahmed is pending before the committee. I say that as per the

affidavit given by the Maqsub Baig Mohd Baig appointment is given to the Maqssodbaig. It is submitted that in the case of employee Smt. Taherabee Amir baig his sons and daughters had given

an no objection on affidavit to the respondent that appointment be given to Shri. Mehboodbaig Hussain baig. It is submitted that employee Smt. Mehboob bee Sk. Imam has given in written that appointment be given to Sk. Akram Sk. Saleem. It is not true to say that Shri. Rajesh Chagan Nindane appointed as son of deceased. That appointment order is not given to

{5} WP 4250.16.odt

Shri. Rajesh Chagan Nindane.

13. It is submitted that Sadik Baig had given an

application on 14/06/2011 therafter Dadabaig Riyasatbaig has given affidavit on 22/07/2014 therefore his name is included in the list of 2015 and

as per provision of relevant government resolutions appointment is given. It is submitted that Smt. Phulabai submitted affidavit on 06/09/2014 requesting to give appointment to Smt. Chaya Rajendra Chavan,

thereafter Smt. Phulabai given and affidavit to the

respondent on 27/03/2015 that the appointment be given to Shri. Ganesh Rajendra Chavan therefore the

committee as per provisions of relevant government resolution and as per the affidavit of Smt. Phulabai appointment is given to the Shri. Ganesh Rajendra Chavan. It is submitted that the committee has

verified the documents of Rupchand Vishnu Chauriya

and found that he is not eligible, hence appointment is not given to him. I say and submit that all the appointments are as per the provision of Government

Resoluation dated 10/11/2015 therefore there is no substance in the allegation of the petitioner that all the appointments are illegal."

4] In view of the explanation tendered by the respondents in the aforesaid affidavit in reply, the grievance raised by the petitioner does not survive. Writ petition being devoid of substance, the same stands rejected.

            [K.K.SONAWANE]                                       [R.M. BORDE]
              JUDGE                                                 JUDGE
    grt/-