Balu Akaram Varne vs Ceo Of Nagarparishad Ashta And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3690 Bom

       2023:BHC-AS:11379-DB



                       (8)-WP-4515-23.doc.

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

          Digitally
          signed by
                                                  WRIT PETITION NO.4515 OF 2023
          BALAJI
BALAJI    GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL   Date:
          2023.04.17
          10:46:33
                       Shri. Balu Akaram Varne                                               ..Petitioner
          +0530
                              Versus
                       CEO of Nagarparishad Ashta & Ors.                                     ..Respondents

                       Mr. Laxman Kalel, for the Petitioner.
                       Mr. Aditya Desai, for the Respondent No.1.
                       Ms. Manasi Pilankar a/w Raman Kamble, for the Respondent No.3.

                                                             CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ &
                                                                     SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 13th APRIL, 2023

P.C.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner challenges the appointment of respondent No.3. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that respondent No.3 is appointed in place of father as Safai Kamgar with respondent No.1. Learned counsel submits that father of the respondent No.3 was suspended and subsequently retired, compassionate appointment cannot be given to the ward of such a person. The compassionate appointment is not a right as per the judgment of the Supreme Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Vs. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union reported in

BGP. 1 of 2

(8)-WP-4515-23.doc.

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 739.

4. According to the learned counsel, father of the respondent No.3 was guilty of illegal acts, such as smuggling of diesel.

5. In service jurisprudence the petitioner would not have any locus-standi to challenge the appointment of the respondent No.3. The petitioner is not affected by the appointment of respondent No.3. There is no question of public interest in the present matter. The challenge under service law by a stranger can only by a writ of quo-warranto. The same is not the case here.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grandson of the petitioner was also interested in the said job. In that case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

7. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]                           [ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]




BGP.                                                                       2 of 2