Bombay High Court
Bebabai Sanjay Patil And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 August, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-AUG:21768-DB
(1) 28 wp 10526.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
28 WRIT PETITION NO. 10526 OF 2019
BEBABAI SANJAY PATIL AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
.....
Advocate for the Petitioner : Sharayu Dhanture h/f. Gore Ravindra Vitthal
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya
Advocate for Resp. Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. M.S. Sonawane
.....
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 11th August, 2025
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned AGP for the
Respondent/State and learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to
4 concerning Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.
2. The Petitioners are praying for quashing and setting aside the
communication dated 14.12.2018, whereby it was held that in terms of the
relevant Government Resolution and the policy of the State, the name of
the Petitioner No.1 in the waiting list for appointment on compassionate
ground could not be permitted to be substituted by the name of her son i.e.
the Petitioner No.2. One of the grounds for refusal of such substitution
was that the Petitioner No.1 had already attained the age of 45 years.
(2) 28 wp 10526.19
3. It is relevant to note that a Full Bench of this Court in the case
of Kalpana Vilkas Taram V/s. State of Maharashtra; AIR OnLine 2024 Bom.
682, answered two specific questions.
4. The Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017 was subject
matter of discussion therein, which also specifically concerned the question
as to whether substitution of name in the waiting list could be permitted
after the person whose name was included in the waiting list had crossed
the maximum age limit of 45 years.
5. The Full Bench of this Court considered the Government
Resolutions issued by the Respondent/State from time to time in this
context and after considering various aspects of the matter, answered the
questions in favour of the Petitioner. It was recorded that substitution of
name in waiting list ought to be permitted and such substitution could be
permitted even in situations where the original member of the family,
whose name was included in the the waiting list, had crossed the age limit
of 45 years.
6. This being the position of law, it was sought to be argued on
behalf of the Respondents that since the Full Bench judgment has come
(3) 28 wp 10526.19
recently on 28.05.2024 and the impugned order was passed on
14.12.2018, the same ought not to inure to the benefit of the Petitioners.
7. We are of the opinion that the Full Bench in the
aforementioned judgment has clarified the position of law as it always
existed or ought to have existed. The scheme of compassionate
appointment inherently is a beneficial scheme and therefore, we are of the
opinion that benefit of the said Full Bench judgment passed by this Court
ought to be given to the Petitioners herein.
8. In view of the above, notwithstanding the objections raised on
behalf of the Respondents, we are inclined to allow the present petition.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clauses-B and C.
10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
[Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] [MANISH PITALE, J.]
mub
