SARITA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

(2.) This petition challenges the claim being staked by respondent no.6 to her appointment to the post of Sweeper against the vacancy which has arisen after retirement of respondent no.7 from the same post w.e.f. 20.3.2018. Just before the retirement, the retirement being the voluntary retirement, respondent no.7, as per Office circular dated 31.1.2005, nominated her daughter, respondent no.6 to be considered for being appointed as Sweeper against the vacancy that would arise after her retirement. Such nomination which was firstly made by her on 20.7.2016, was reiterated by respondent no.7 several times thereafter. Last of her such reiteration was on 21.3.2018 when she informed the Municipal Authorities that she was nominating her daughter, respondent no.6, to be considered for being appointed as Sweeper in her place, believing that, after her retirement, no one else but respondent no.6 being the daughter, who had been divorced from her husband, would be staying with her and would also be taking proper care of her. This was questioned by the petitioner contending that the first request was made by respondent no.7 for considering the name of respondent no.6 for such appointment, respondent no.6 did not fall in the eligible categories of legal heirs as mentioned in paragraph no.6 of Circular dated 31.1.2005. The petitioner contended that, at that point of time, respondent no.6 was the married daughter and therefore, she could not have been nominated by respondent no.7. The petitioner apprehended that her such claim might be rejected by the Authorities and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking mandamus against the Authorities.

(3.) So far as certain facts are concerned, we would like to state them here there being no dispute about these facts. The post of Sweeper which was to be considered for appointment was the one which was occupied by respondent no.7. She filed an application for grant of permission for her voluntary retirement and it was accepted w.e.f. 20.3.2018. Respondent no.6 is the daughter of respondent no.7. Her marriage with one Vikram Samundre was solemnized in the year 2005. Some matrimonial differences arose between the two and the marriage came to be dissolved by the decree of divorce granted by 2 nd Joint Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Amravati in Hindu Marriage Petition No.221 of 2016 on 2.5.2017. The petitioner is also in relation with respondent no.7, she being the daughter-in- law of respondent no.7. Respondent no.7 had nominated respondent no.6 to be appointed as Sweeper in her place firstly on 20.7.2016, secondly on 23.8.2016 and lastly on 21.3.2018.