In a writ petition filed by the widow of a deceased excise officer, the Bombay High Court dismissed her plea for appointment as Inspector on compassionate grounds. The court held that her acceptance of a junior post waived her claim, and others' non-compliant appointments did not create a legal right for her.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
AJN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1720 OF 2005
Shabnam F. Batatawala ... Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Srikrishnan i/b Mr. M.G. Gawade for the petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Masurkar with Mr. N.V. Masurkar for the respondents.
CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI &
ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
DATED: 22ND NOVEMBER 2005.
P.C. :-
| 1. | The petitioner is |
the | widow of one |
Farook | Batatawala. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| He | was working with |
the | Department of |
Central | Excise, |
| Mumbai | II as Inspector. |
He died on |
1/5/1998. | On | |
| 2/9/1998, | the petitioner |
a | pplied to respondent |
3 | for |
| appointing | her to the |
post | of Inspector in |
the | Central |
| Excise | Department on |
compass | ionate ground, |
as | the |
| petitioner | was a graduate |
and | duly qualified to |
work |
as |
| Inspector. | Respondent 3 |
by | their letter |
dated | 14/10/1998 |
| informed | the petitioner |
that | her application |
has | been |
| considered | for the post |
of | "Upper Divisional |
Clerk". | In |
| October, | 1998, the |
petit | ioner received the |
appointment | |
| letter | containing the te |
rms | and condition |
s of |
her |
| appointment | to the post |
of | "Upper Divisional |
Clerk". | She |
| accepted | the employment an |
d | started working. |
In | October, |
: 2 :
| 2001, the petitioner |
m | a | de representatio |
n to |
respond | ent 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| requesting that she |
may | be considered |
for the |
post | of |
|
| Inspector/Examiner. It |
is | her case |
that in |
or | about | |
| 2002, she learnt that |
whe | n | she had |
made | the | application |
| for the post of |
Insp |
e | ctor on com |
passionate | ground, | two |
| other persons had |
also | applied to |
respond | ent 3 |
for |
|
| appointment to the |
post | of Inspector |
on | c |
ompassionate | |
| ground and respondent |
2 | appointed both |
of the |
m to |
the | |
| post of "Examiner", |
which | is equivalent |
to |
the post |
of | |
| "Inspector". The |
peti | ti | oner addressed |
anot |
her let |
ter to |
| respondent 2 requesting |
that | her case |
may | be | considered | |
| for the post of |
Insp | ec | tor/Examiner. | Ho | wever, | respondents |
| 2 and 3 did |
not c |
o | nsider the petit |
ioner’s | case. | The |
| petitioner, therefore, |
f | iled original |
a |
pplication | before | |
| the Central Administrative |
T |
r | ibunal, Mumb |
ai. | The | Central |
| Administration Tribunal, |
Mumba | i | by | its | order | dated |
8/2/2005 rejected the petitioner’s original application. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
| 2. | We | have hear |
d the learned |
couns | el fo |
r the |
petitioner. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In | our | opinion, | no interference is |
ne |
cessary | with | the |
| impugned | order. | The petitioner |
has | accepted | the | ||
| appointment. | Only | because, according |
to | her, | two | other | |
| persons | were | appointed | to the |
post | of | Inspecto | r/Examiner, |
| she | cannot | contend | that she may |
also | be | appointed | to the |
| said | post. | It | appears that the |
C.B.E.C | . | has issued |
a |
| direction | vide | letter | dated 15/1/1991 |
that | appointment | to |
|
| such | posts | should | not be made |
on | compass | ionate | grounds. |
| Appointment | of two |
other persons |
made | in | violation | of |
: 3 :
| this petitioner |
direction to |
does be |
not appoi |
give nted |
any to |
legal the |
post |
right of |
to the Inspector. |
|---|
There is no merit in the petition. The petition is
rejected.
(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)
(ABHAY S. OKA, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds despite having accepted the post of Upper Divisional Clerk.
Whether the appointment of others in violation of a departmental direction creates a legal right for the petitioner to the Inspector post.
Shabnam F. Batatawala
Union of India
Ranjana Desai
Abhay S. Oka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
