The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Government Resolution prohibiting the substitution of the name of another legal representative in the waiting list for compassionate appointment was held to be arbitrary, irrational, and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also emphasized that the Government Resolution could not be applied retrospectively and that the appointment on compassionate ground should be made in terms of the existing policy.

JUDGMENT :

Urmila Joshi Phalke, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard Shri P.S. Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. S.S. Jachak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Father of the petitioner, namely, Shri Puran Mohanlal Patle was appointed as a Live Stock Supervisor in the Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. He died on 17.7.2013 while in service. Mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Devita Puran Patle had filed an application for compassionate appointment on 5.8.2013. Her name was included in the waiting list but due to health problem mother of the petitioner requested to substitute the name of petitioner Payal Puran Patle. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bramhapuri forwarded the said proposal to the respondent No.3 to substitute the name of petitioner in the waiting list on 7.3.2014. Accordingly, name of the petitioner was included in the waiting list published on 28.2.2015 at Serial No.157. The name of the petitioner was continued in waiting list published on 1.11.2017. In view of the Government Resolution dated 20.5.2015 the name of the petitioner was deleted from waiting list published in June 2018. Before deleting the name of the petitioner on 9.4.2018 respondent No.1 issued letter to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad i.e. respondent No.3 informing that in view of Government Resolution dated 20.5.2015 there is no provision to substitute the name of other legal heirs. The name of other legal heirs could be included only in case of death of the concerned applicant. In the light of the above communication respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 5.7.2018 to the petitioner informing that in view of above Government Resolution her name could not be continued and name of her mother is to be included. Said communication was replied by the petitioner by informing that her name was included prior to said Government Resolution, therefore her name could not be removed. However, respondents included the name of her mother and removed her name. Said action of the respondents is challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. It is the contention of the petitioner that the action of the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

4. In response to the notice the respondents opposed the petition on the ground that in the light of the Government Resolution dated 20.5.2015 in Clause 1(c) “after the death of any employee the name of the eligible candidate of the family once taken in waiting list of compassionate appointment, then his/her name could not be substituted by any other another eligible successor of the family.” Thus, the provision of substitution of name of candidate in the waiting list does not exists in current policy. It is the contention of the respondent that if the death of a candidate of the waiting list is occurred then name of another eligible candidate could be substituted on the place of original candidate. Therefore, action of the respondent is justified and writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel Shri P.S. Kshirsagar, for the petitioner. He reiterated the contentions as per the petition and submitted that said Government Resolution could not be applied retrospectively. Prior to the said Government Resolution name of the petitioner was included in the waiting list. Therefore, the action of the respondents is illegal and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.2014/2019, wherein it is held that such refusal of including the name cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He also relied upon Dnyaneshwar Ramkishan Musane Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.6267/2018, decided on 11.3.2020, wherein this Court has held that prohibition imposed by the Government Resolution dated 20.5.2015 that name of any legal representative of the deceased employee would not be substituted by any other legal representative see