Bombay High Court
Ashish S/O Pralhad Bhagat vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 18 October, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
1 wp1007.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1007/2020
Ashish S/o Pralhad Bhagat,
aged about 25 Yrs., Occ. Nil,
R/o Bhiwapur Tola, Post Chikhli,
Tah. Tiroda, Dist. Gondia. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal Secretary,
Irrigation Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Superintending Engineer and
Administrator, Command Area
Development Authority, Wing-A,
Vainganga Nagar, Ajni,
Nagpur - 440 003.
3. Superintending Engineer,
Bhandara Irrigation Circle,
Bhandara (Girola).
4. Sectional Engineer, Sangrampur,
Irrigation Branch, Ekodi, Tah. Gondia,
Dist. Gondia.
5. Sachin S/o Deorao Patle,
aged Major, Occ. Service,
R/o Chikhli, Tah. Tiroda,
Dist. Gondia. ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2022 01:10:20 :::
2 wp1007.2020
-----------------
Mr. Prashant Thakre, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
No.1.
Mr. T.M. Zaheer, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
----------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE
AND ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
DATE : 18.10.2022
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submit
that the impugned order has been passed only for the reason that
respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 have felt as bound by the orders of the
Lokayukta. If this is so, respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 still nurture a
feeling that the orders passed by the Lokayukta are not correct
and are not in accordance with law. Learned counsel for
3 wp1007.2020
respondent Nos.3 and 4 accepts inference so drawn by us and in
our view, rightly so. The reason being that whatever orders of
Lokayukta may be there, they are only in the nature of
recommendations and, therefore, before accepting those
recommendations, the competent authority, in the present case,
the appointing authority i.e. respondent No.2, should have
applied its mind to those recommendations and only after being
satisfied about their correctness, he should have taken a decision
to accept those recommendations and accordingly cancelled the
appointment of the petitioner on a class-III post on
compassionate ground. This exercise, obviously, has not been
done by respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 and, therefore, the impugned
orders, in our considered view, suffer from the vice of
non-application of mind. The impugned orders, therefore,
deserve to be quashed and set aside.
3. The petition is allowed. The impugned orders are
hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to
4 wp1007.2020
respondent No.3 for its fresh consideration and decision in
accordance with law.
4. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Tambaskar.
