Bombay High Court
Avinash S/O. Dipak Paulzagade vs Zilla Parishad, Gondia, Thr. Its ... on 1 July, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Urmila Sachin Phalke
J-wp2832.21.odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.2832 OF 2021
Avinash s/o. Dipak Paulzagade,
Aged about 25 years,
Occupation : Nil,
R/o. Ganesh Nagar Baradtoli,
Ward No.3, Arjuni/Morgaon,
Post & Taq. Arjuni/Morgaon,
Distt. Gondia. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. Zilla Parishad, Gondia,
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Gondia,
Tq. And Distt. Gondia.
2. Zilla Parishad, Gondia,
Through its Deputy Chief Executive Officer,
Tq. And Distt. Gondia. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri J.K. Matale, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri A.M. Dixit, Advocate for Respondents absent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : A.S.Chandurkar And
Urmila Joshi-Phalke, JJ.
DATE : 1st July, 2022.
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2022 02:44:23 :::
J-wp2832.21.odt 2/7
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally by consent of both the parties.
3. By this petition, the petitioner prayed for restoration
of his name in the waiting list dated 10.6.2021 of the
candidates to be considered for compassionate appointment.
As per the contention of the petitioner his father died on
11.2.2008. While in service the mother of the petitioner had
initially applied for grant of compassionate appointment to the
sister of the petitioner, namely, Sonali. Accordingly, the name
of Sonali, sister of the petitioner, was admitted in the waiting
list of the candidates to be considered for grant of
compassionate appointment at Sr. No.378. In the year 2011
i.e. on 7.12.2011 mother of the petitioner had filed an
application with the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Gondia for substituting the name of the petitioner at the place
of his sister. Accordingly, his name was substituted at
Sr.No.378 in the year 2012. The respondents have
communicated with the petitioner and called for relevant
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2022 02:44:23 :::
J-wp2832.21.odt 3/7
documents for verification. Accordingly, on 25.9.2018,
7.1.2019 and 4.3.2021 he had forwarded the said documents
for verification, his name was continued in the waiting list of
the candidates to be considered for grant of compassionate
appointment. Suddenly his name was removed from the
waiting list and the name of his sister Sonali was appearing in
the waiting list. No communication was received by the
petitioner regarding the reason as to why his name was
removed and the name of his sister, Sonali, was again
included in the said list. It is the contention of the petitioner
that his name was included in the waiting list after the
consent of all the family members. The contention of the
petitioner that without giving him any notice his name was
removed from the waiting list. Thus, the action of the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 is arbitrary and illegal and prayed for
restoration of his name in the waiting list of the candidates to
be considered for grant of compassionate appointment.
4. In response to the notice respondents filed their
reply. No specific stand is taken by the respondents regarding
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2022 02:44:23 :::
J-wp2832.21.odt 4/7
the removal of the name of the petitioner from the waiting
list. It is only contention of the respondents that there is no
provision to substitute the name in the waiting list as per the
compassionate policy under the said directions removing the
name of the petitioner and, therefore, name of his sister,
Sonali Dipak Paulgazade, came to be confirmed in the said
waiting list.
5. Heard Shri J.K. Matale, learned counsel for the
petitioner. None was present for the respondents, but their
reply is taken into consideration.
6. It appears from the record that the father of the
petitioner, who was working as a Live Stock Supervisor died
on 11.2.2008. In the year 2008 itself name of sister of the
petitioner, Sonali, was included in the waiting list to be
considered for grant of compassionate appointment as per the
request of the mother of the petitioner. In the year 2011
mother of the petitioner had filed an application for
substituting the name of the present petitioner in the name of
his sister Sonali. Said application was filed after the consent
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2022 02:44:23 :::
J-wp2832.21.odt 5/7
of all the family members. The respondents have taken into
consideration the said application and accordingly the name of
the present petitioner was included in the said waiting list at
Sr.No.378. Subsequently, also the name of the present
petitioner was continued in the said waiting list which was
published by the respondents time to time. Lastly, the waiting
list was published on 8.10.2020, in that list also the name of
the petitioner was shown at Sr.No.38. Suddenly, the name of
the petitioner was removed from the said list and again the
name of his sister was included in the said waiting list. It
appears that before inclusion the name of the sister, in the
said waiting list of the candidates to be considered for grant of
compassionate appointment, no notice was given to the
petitioner and without assigning any reason suddenly
petitioner's name was removed from the said waiting list.
7. The respondents have taken stand that there is no
provision to substitute the name of other family member in
the waiting list. This aspect is already dealt by this Court in
Writ Petition No.5944/2018 (Smt. Pushpabai wd/o. Rajesh
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2022 02:44:23 :::
J-wp2832.21.odt 6/7
Bisne and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others),
decided on 22nd July, 2019. The said petition was allowed and
it was directed that the name of the petitioner No.2 therein be
included in the register maintained for making of
compassionate appointment so as to give effect in the order
involved therein. In the present case, already name of the
petitioner was included in the waiting list of the candidates to
be considered for appointment of compassionate ground.
Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents that there is no
provision has no substance. The action on the part of the
respondents by which the name of the sister was included
without her application and without giving the petitioner an
opportunity is arbitrary and illegal and liable to be set aside.
In the above set of facts, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Hence, we pass following order.
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The respondents are directed to restore the
name of the petitioner in the waiting list maintained for
J-wp2832.21.odt 7/7
making of compassionate appointment dated 10.6.2021 since
his name was figured in the said waiting list from the year
2012 onwards.
8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No
order as to costs.
(Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) (A.S.Chandurkar, J.)
okMksns
