The main legal point established is the need for just and reasonable decision-making in the application of government policies and rules, especially in cases of compassionate employment.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Patel, J.

1. Rule. The Respondents waive service. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. This Writ Petition presents what is possibly an exceptional and, to our mind, a truly difficult situation. On the one hand there is a government policy for good and stated reason. On the other, there is a continuing tragedy that has befallen the widowed Petitioner, today about 42 years old.

3. The facts are these. The Petitioner, Firdous, was born in 1980. She took a Bachelor’s degree. She married one Mohammad Yunus Patel, a police constable in the service of the State of Maharashtra. They had two children from this marriage. Firdous was Mohammad’s second wife; he had a first wife, Raisa. In 2008, Mohammad and Raisa had a burn accident. Both were severely injured. Both succumbed to these injuries. Raisa died on 17th March 2008. Mohammad died a few days later, on 21st March 2008. Mohammad had three children by Raisa. These are now with their maternal uncle, Raisa’s brother.

4. The family performed Mohammad’s final rites. Then there was a settlement discussion and an agreement between Raisa’s brother (her children’s maternal uncle) and Firdous. They agreed that a succession certificate would be obtained, and, while Raisa’s children would be solely entitled to Mohammad’s terminal benefits (provident fund, gratuity and so on), Firdous would be entitled to apply for government service on compassionate grounds.

5. Firdous moved an application before the State of Maharashtra on 20th November 2009 seeking employment in government service on compassionate grounds. She received no reply. She sent a reminder on 7th April 2011. To this, she received a response that very day asking documentary proof of the age and number of children of the deceased Government servant, Mohammad. By a report of 22nd July 2011, the State Government informed the Director General and Inspector General of Police that on account of Clause (E) of a Government Resolution dated 28th March 2001, the application made by Firdous had to be rejected. Firdous approached the Home Minister. On that representation, on 26th September 2011, the Hon’ble Home Minister directed the State Government to examine the case. There was no action. Firdous made another representation on 18th October 2012. By this time a full four years had passed since Mohammad’s death. In her 2012 application, Firdous mentioned the case of one Alka Bhiku Karade. There, too, a government servant was found to have had more than two children, and from two wives, and, therefore — at least in theory — Alka Karade should have suffered same disqualification or ineligibility. However, Alka Karade did get appointed on compassionate grounds. Firdous therefore claimed parity. She also pointed out that in the Karade case, Alka was also the second wife, although that marriage was at least arguably null and void, the Karads being Hindus and Bhiku Karade’s first wife, Indubai, being very much alive. Bhiku and Indubai were not divorced. There were thus two counts to render Alka Karade ineligible: more than two children, and an invalid second marriage. Despite this, the government exercised its discretion.

6. Receiving no response from the State Government, Firdous moved the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (“MAT”) in Original Application No. 154 of 2016. Here she pleaded that Rule (6) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Declaration of Family) Rules, 2005 (“the 2005 Rules”) allowed for a relaxation of the eligibility provisions, and therefore sought a direction that the 2005 Rules be relaxed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of her case. That application was partly allowed by an order of 30th January 2017 remitting the matter to the 3rd Respondent, the Director-General and Inspector-General of Police, with a further direction that the Petitioner should be given an opportunity of being heard and that a decision should be taken in three months. By it