STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. JAYSHILA BADGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 11.8.2010, allowing an original application filed by the respondent and directing the petitioners to appoint the respondent in a Class-IV Category post on compassionate ground.

(2.) The husband of the respondent was serving as a X-ray Assistant/Ward Boy in the Rural Hospital at Lakhandur since 1988. The husband of the respondent expired on 24.4.2003 while in service. On 12.8.2003 the respondent submitted an application to the Medical Officer, Rural Hospital, Lakhandur, for an appointment on compassionate ground. The application was forwarded to the Collector, Bhandara, who registered the name of the respondent in the waiting list. Since the respondent was not appointed on compassionate ground for some time, she again applied to the Collector. It was then informed by the Civil Surgeon to the respondent that her name was deleted from the waiting list in terms of G.R. dated 22.8.2005 as she had crossed the age of 40 years. The respondent challenged the said communication before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, by an order dated 11.8.2010 directed the petitioners to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground.

(3.) Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was not justified in allowing the Original Application and directing the petitioners to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground though the Government Resolutions dated 22.8.2005 and 23.4.2008 clearly prohibited the appointment of the persons above the age of 40 years on compassionate ground. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that initially the name of the respondent was kept in the waiting list but since she completed the age of 40 years, her name was deleted from the waiting list and she was not considered for appointment on compassionate ground. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the G.R. dated 22.8.2005 was challenged before this Court but the challenge had failed.