KALPANA VILAS TARAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) A bunch of petitions, challenging clauses 3.11 and 3.21 of the Government Resolution, dtd. 21/09/2017 issued by the State of Maharashtra as regards its policy relating to the compassionate appointments, were listed before a Division Bench. (Coram: A.G. Gharote and M.S. Jawalkar, J.J.) Clause 3.11 fixes the upper limits for such appointments as 45 years. It further contemplates deletion of name in the eventuality where the appointment is not made till the age of 45 years. Clause 3.21 permits substitution of name of one of the legal heirs of a person wait-listed for compassionate appointment, if he/ she passes away before the appointment is made.

(3.) The Division Bench, on hearing the aforesaid bunch of petitions, formed an opinion that, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dnyaneshwar S/o. Ramkishan Musane. vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2020(5) Mh.L.J. 381, permitting substitution of name contrary to clause 3.21, does not consider the object of the policy in light of what has been held consistently in Umesh Kumar Nagpal .vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, Nilima Raju Khapekar .vs. Executive Director, Bank of Baroda and Oth., reported in 2022(3) Mh.L.J. 441 and State of West Bengal .vs. Debabrata Tiwari, reported in AIR 2023 (SC) 1467. In the abovementioned backdrop, on the Division Bench's request the matter is referred to answer the following questions: