Dismissed

Shushrusha Ravindranath Chintalwad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Nov 2007WP/3658/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed by the widow of a deceased government employee, whose services were terminated due to invalidity of his caste certificate. The court held that the husband did not challenge the scrutiny or termination orders during his lifetime, and thus the petition is barred.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without orders setting aside the scrutiny committee order or termination of services.

Shushrusha Ravindranath Chintalwad Vs State of… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO. 3658 OF 2007

¶4

 Smt.Shushrusha Ravindranath Chintalwad ...Petitioner

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

 Mr.N.V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner.

¶8

 Mr.R.D. Rane, Government Pleader for the Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH &
V.M. KANADE, JJ.

¶10

DATED : NOVEMBER 21, 2007

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

 . The husband of the petitioner by name

¶13

 Ravindranath was appointed in the post of Live Stock
 Development Officer against the post reserved for
 Scheduled Tribe. He was claiming that he was member of
 Mahadev Koli Tribe. His claim that he belongs to
 Mahadev Koli Tribe was held to be invalid by Scrutiny
 Committee by order dated 25.1.96. As a consequence of
 invalidity of caste certificate of the petitioner’s
 husband, his services were terminated by order dated

¶14

 - 2 -

¶15

 6.2.2001. Admittedly, he did not challenge the order

¶16

 terminating his services. He expired on 15th April,
 2005. Now his wife has filed this petition challenging
 the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 25.1.96 as
 also the order terminating his services dated 6.2.2001.
 According to her, the order of Scrutiny Committee dated
 25.1.96 should be set aside and the order terminating
 the services of her husband dated 6.2.2001 should also
 be set aside and he should be deemed to be in service
 till his death and therefore, under the policy of the
 Government for appointment on compassionate ground, she
 should be given an appointment.

¶17

 2. Order dated 25.1.96 was made by the Scrutiny
 Committee during the life time of the husband. He did
 not challenge it. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be
 permitted to challenge the said order. Further, order
 dated 6.2.2001 terminating the services of the husband
 was also made during his life time. He did not
 challenge it. Assuming that he was suffering from any
 disability, the order could have been challenged through
 the petitioner as a next friend but she also has not

¶18

 - 3 -

¶19

 done it and therefore, the claim of the petitioner
 cannot be entertained.

¶20

 3. Writ petition is dismissed.

¶21

 (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.)
 (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Shushrusha Ravindranath Chintalwad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shushrusha Ravindranath Chintalwad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gangaram Laxman Rasal Vs State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Asif Latif Son of Shaikh Latif Ambhirbhai @ Amirbhai Vs Divisional Cast Certificate Scrutiny Committee and Ors.

Jyotsna Shailesh Mody and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivaji Bhaurao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The Maharashtra State Co-Operative Cotton Growers Federation Ltd. Vs the Director of Marketing -through the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rathi Harinarayan Mohanlal Vs Multi Purpose Adarsh New English and Higher Secondary School and Ors.