Compassionate appointments must respect merit-based recruitment policies, and chosen candidates from selection lists have vested rights to appointment unless valid reasons exist for non-appointment.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 appears and states that due to the reasons beyond his control he could not appear on 23^rd July 2025 when this matter was called out for hearing. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent no.4 has filed a counter affidavit in this matter and he would only adopt the submissions made on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 who are the officers under the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. (in short, ‘MSETCL’). To recapitulate, this writ petition was set for ex parte hearing on 24^th July 2025 against the respondent no.4.

2. The petitioner seeks a direction to the MSETCL to appoint her on the post of Assistant Programmer. She is claiming appointment under the 'Open Category' but on that post the respondent no.4 was appointed on compassionate ground. She has therefore prayed for canceling the appointment of the respondent no. 4 and for continuation of the select list dated 7th October 2017 until final disposal of the writ petition.

3. The petitioner claims that she possess a degree in M.E. (Computers) with one year of experience from INFOSYS, Pune, and an additional three and a half years of experience at Datamatics Global Services Limited, Mumbai as a Computer Programmer. An advertisement was published on 17^th May 2017 for making appointment on various posts and the petitioner participated in the said recruitment exercise for the post of Assistant Programmer. Having secured 70.28 out of 150 marks, she was declared successful and placed at Serial No. 1 under the 'Open Category' in the results published on 7th October 2017. She appeared for document verification on 16th October 2017 and was assured that an appointment letter would be issued shortly. Later, upon inquiry, she could learn through the information received under the RTI Act that a policy was being formulated to appoint the dependents of deceased employees who were earlier appointed on compassionate grounds on a lower post. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 was appointed on a Class-III post and then re-appointed on the same post of Assistant Programmer under the 'Open Category' which was already advertised under Advertisement No. 1/2017. The petitioner has pleaded that this appointment was illegal and a backdoor entry.

4. On the other hand, the respondent nos.1 to 3 have pleaded that a Scheme for compassionate appointment was framed and published vide CS No.28 on 16^th April 1975 under Appendix ‘G’ of the MSETCL Employees Classification and Recruitment Regulation, 1961. These respondents contend that the Board has adequate powers to make appointments under the Scheme for employment of sons/daughters of deceased employees framed through Board Resolution No.1128 dated 25^th March 1975. They refer to various clauses of the Scheme and Advertisement No.1/2017 to put forth a stand that the petitioner has no vested right to appointment. According to them, the employer has a prerogative to make appointment from the provisional select list or to re-appoint any person who was given compassionate appointment in a lower Grade. It is further pleaded that the advertisement itself provided that the number of vacancies and reservation for backward classes or persons with disability or women are provisional and that may change without any notice in the newspaper or on the website and such change shall not be intimated to any candidate. This stand of the respondents gets support from Clause 21 of the advertisement which provided that the Company shall have a right to modify or to cancel the advertisement / selection process at any sta