IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BHARAT DASHARATH CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PANDIT BHARAT D PA A N SH DI A T RATH WRIT PETITION NO.13614 OF 2018 Date: 2025.08.06 18:06:01 +0530 Smt.Gauri Mahesh Nalawade Age 39 years, Occu. : Nil.

R/at. 3/69, Sumatinath Apartments, Petitioner Hirji Baug Soc., J.B. Road, Sewri (W), Mumbai 15.

Versus

1) The Managing Director, Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd.

Prakash Ganga, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai5.

2) The Executive Director (HR)

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., Prakash Ganga, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 51.

3) The Chief General Manager (HR), Respondent Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., Prakash Ganga, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 51.

4) Mr.Parijatrai V. Kanugo, C/o. The Chief General Manager (HR)

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., Prakash Ganga, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 51.

----------

Mr.Vaishali Jagdale, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr.Abhijeet Joshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Mr.Yashodeep P. Deshmukh i/b. Mr.Sachin Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

----------

CORAM: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR &

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED : 25th JULY 2025.

Per, 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