The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compassionate appointee, whose basis of entry in employment is his parent's entry in employment, is mandated to submit a validity certificate. The court also provided a detailed procedure for validation and continuation of services.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

1. In Writ Petition No.6771/2022, the Division Bench (coram : Chief Justice & Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) passed an order on 05.07.2022 as under: -

“1. Having heard Mr. Thorat, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Patil, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent no.1/State and Ms. Thorat, learned advocate for respondents 2 and 3/Zilla Parishad, we are of the view that the issue raised in this petition can be advantageously heard by a Bench of three judges.

2. Let the file be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.”

2. In view of the above, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice was pleased to constitute this Larger Bench and the writ petition was posted for hearing on 07.07.2022.

3. Writ Petition No.6750 of 2022 filed by the same advocate for the petitioner, was before the Division Bench on 06.07.2022. Considering the above order, the said petition was tagged along with Writ Petition No.6771 of 2022 and heard together on 07.07.2022.

4. In Writ Petition No.6750 of 2022, the petitioner has put forth prayer clause A as under: -

“A. By issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in the like nature, the respondent no.2 may kindly be directed to not to insist to the petitioner, to submit the Tribe Validity Certificate, as his appointment is from the Compassionate Ground and not from the Scheduled Tribe category.”

5. In Writ Petition No.6771 of 2022, the petitioner has put forth prayer clause A as under: -

“A. By issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in the like nature, the respondent no.2 and 3 may kindly be directed to not to insist to the petitioner, to submit the Tribe Validity Certificate, as her appointment is from the Compassionate Ground and not from the Scheduled Tribe category.”

6. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned counsel.

7. During the course of hearing in the matters, the issue arising for consideration of the Larger Bench has been formulated by us as under: -

“Whether, a compassionate appointee, is not required to submit a caste/tribe validity certificate when the parent had secured employment, on the basis of a caste/tribe certificate, on a post which was specifically reserved for a backward category and who did not submit a validity certificate until his/her demise while in service?”

8. The learned advocate for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments: -

a) Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138.

b) Balaji Sitaram More vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.501/2004 decided on 02.09.2015 by the Aurangabad Bench of this Court.

c) Rekha Sayanna Totawar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.2131/2011 decided on 24.08.2011 by the Aurangabad Bench of this Court.

d) Vinodkumar Singh Rajkumar Singh Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.4185/2015 decided on 14.01.2016 by the Nagpur Bench of this Court.

e) Smt. Sarita wd/o Vijay Giri vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee and another, Writ Petition No.43/2016 decided on 20.04.2016 by the Nagpur Bench of this Court.

f) Rajesh Ravishankar Gupta vs. The Managing Director, MSEDCL and another, Writ Petition No.2174/2007 decided on 20.03.2017 by the Nagpur Bench of this Court.

g) Chandrashekhar Brijbahadur Yadav vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.932/2013 decided on 04.01.2018 by the Nagpur Bench of this Court.

h) Prashant Vistari Mallewar vs. The Chief Conservator of Forest and others, Writ Petition No.3927/2013 decided on 20.03.2017 by the Nagpur Bench of this Court.

i) Sanjay Lacchhana Bodewar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.6906/2015 decided on 04.10.2017 by the Nagpur Bench of this Court.

j) Ajinkya Rajiv Khadatkar vs. Managing Director, MSEDCL and others, reported in 2019 (6) ALL MR 187.

k) Pramod Shivaji Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2017 (4) ALL MR 279.

l) Kailas Vasantrao Shrote