Bombay High Court
Smt. Pushpabai Wd/O Rajesh Bisne And ... vs State Of Maha. Thr. Its Secr. Dept. Of ... on 22 July, 2019
Author: Sunil B. Shukre
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, S.M. Modak
50-wp-5944-18(j).odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No. 5944 OF 2018
1. Smt. Pushpabai Wd/o Rajesh Bisne
Aged about 45 Years, Occ. : Nil,
R/o At-post - Kati (Birsola),
Tah. & Distt. Gondia
2. Rahul S/o Rajesh Bisne
Aged about 25 years, Occ. : Nil
R/o At-post - Kati (Birsola)
Tah. & Distt. Gondia : PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department of
Village Development & Water
Conservation, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Department of General
Administration, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3. Zilla Parishad, Gondia, through its
C.E.O., Gondia Tah. & Dist. Gondia : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri A.K. Waghamre, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri K.L.Dharmadhikari, AGP for the respondent nos.1 & 2.
Shri Anoopsingh Parihar, Advocate for the respondent no.3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
S.M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 22nd JULY, 2019.
::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 04:52:38 :::
50-wp-5944-18(j).odt 2/7
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. It is seen that initially, after the death of husband of petitioner no.1, the petitioner no.1 had made an application for her appointment on compassionate basis in Zilla Parishad, Gondia i.e establishment of respondent no.3. On 14th July, 2014, it was realized by the petitioner no.1 that it would be no longer possible for her to do the job in Zilla Parishad, owing to her indisposition and therefore she made an application on the same day for substituting the name of her son Rahul, the petitioner no.2, in her place as an aspirant for appointment on compassionate basis.
3. This application was kept pending by the Chief Executive Officer. The Chief Executive Officer did not do anything as regards this application. Meanwhile, another Government Resolution came on 20th May, 2015 and it stated that substitution of the name of any other family members in place of the original applicant would not be permissible. It appears that Chief Executive Officer was oblivious of the provisions contained in Government Resolution dated 20th May, 2015 and after a long passage of time on ::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 04:52:38 ::: 50-wp-5944-18(j).odt 3/7 3rd February, 2017, passed an order accepting the request for substitution of the name of the petitioner no.1 by the name of petitioner no.2 in the matter of appointment on compassionate basis.
4. Sometime thereafter a query was raised from Mantralaya Mumbai asking the Chief Executive Officer as to under which provisions or administrative policy, such a substitution was permitted by him. Unable to justify the decision, the Chief Executive Officer, by the order passed on 26 th June, 2018 restored the original position which was in the nature that the name of the petitioner no.1 stood restored in the register maintained for the purpose of making appointments on compassionate basis. The name of petitioner no.2 by this decision dated 26th June, 2018, was removed from the register. The petitioner no.1 was not granted any appointment and taking advantage of the petitioner no.1 crossing the age of 45, the respondent no.3 by the communication dated 14th January, 2019 informed the petitioner no.1 that as she had crossed the maximum age limit, her name had been removed from the register maintained for the purpose of making appointment on compassionate basis. This order as well as the order dated 26th February, 2018 both are under challenge in this ::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 04:52:38 ::: 50-wp-5944-18(j).odt 4/7 petition.
5. The facts discussed above would show that whatever has been done by the respondent no.3 in the matter is arbitrary, irrational and quite ruthless, so far as the position of both the petitioners is concerned. The petitioner no.1 had been made to know that it was permissible, as per the administrative policy of the State, to seek the change in the name of the aspirants for compassionate appointments and then, suddenly, she was informed that her name, instead of name of her son, would be considered for being considered on compassionate basis. Thereafter slowly, the matter was allowed to be rendered infractuous on the ground that petitioner no.1 had crossed the upper age limit. When the application for change of name was filed by the petitioner no.1 it was on the date of 14th July, 2014, the prohibition regarding the change of name was not in force and it came into force much later vide Government Resolution dated 20th May, 2015. Had the application dated 14th July, 2014 been considered and decided prior to the Government Resolution dated 20th May, 2015 and in fact, it should have been the order of the day, the position perhaps would have been different. The petitioners would have known where did they stand, in this case much earlier and would have been in a ::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 04:52:38 ::: 50-wp-5944-18(j).odt 5/7 position to make their choices within time. If the petitioner no.1's application dated 14th July, 2014 had been rejected within a reasonable period of time, then the petitioner no.1 would have been able to approach the competent Court of law for seeking redressal of her grievances. But, that advantage also taken away from the petitioner no.1. If it had been allowed earlier, the petitioner no.1 would not have found herself to be left in the lurch. Now, when the petitioner no.1 has crossed the upper age limit, some rule is being flashed and held against the petitioner no.1. Such an approach on the part of the respondent no.3 is not only unreasonable but also highly arbitrary, and against the principle of rule of law. In any case, the provisions contained in Government Resolution dated 20th May, 2015 cannot be applied to the case of the petitioners as the change of names had been sought by them much earlier than this Government Resolution.
6. There is one more question which arises in the facts and circumstances of this petition. The question is about the accountability of high ranking public officers. A high ranking public officer that like of Chief Executive Officer has taken a decision in this case on application of his mind which is visible from the communication dated 3rd February, 2017 allowing the application ::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 04:52:38 ::: 50-wp-5944-18(j).odt 6/7 dated 14th July, 2014 of petitioner no.1 and result was that the name of petitioner no.2 was substituted for the name of petitioner no.1 in the concerned register. Now, a justification has been given for removal of the name of petitioner no.2 from that register and restoration of the name of petitioner no.1 in that register by saying that allowing of application dated 14 th July, 2014 was an inadvertent mistake. When a decision has been taken, after application of mind, it would be the travesty of justice to say that the decision was taken, though with proper application of mind, inadvertently. If a high ranking public officer says so, it would only adversely reflect upon the efficiency of the State administration and, in such a case, the State would have to take a decision about fixing of accountability of such an officer. The State, however, does not appear to have given any consideration to this aspect of the matter. Of course, we would not say anything more in this regard and leave the entire matter to the State for taking of a proper decision in the interest of efficiency of the administration. But till that happens, the persons like the petitioners who find themselves in a hapless situation, should not be made to suffer and that too when administrative authorities act arbitrarily and fancifully.
7. In view of above, we are inclined to allow the petition.
::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 04:52:38 ::: 50-wp-5944-18(j).odt 7/7 ORDER i. Writ Petition is allowed. ii. Respondents are directed to restore the name of
petitioner no.2 in the register maintained for making of compassionate appointments, so as to give effect to the order dated 3rd February, 2017 and consider the name of the petitioner no.2 for being appointed to a suitable post on compassionate basis as per his eligibility and seniority.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid these terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sknair
::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 04:52:38 :::