High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Kotwal's dismissal due to having three children. The Court held that giving a child in adoption does not exempt the biological father from the Small Family Rules.
Writ Petition dismissed; petition to discharge the writ.
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.
wp1202.15.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1202 OF 2015
Yashwant Devsing Chavan ... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Sham V. Walve a/w. Mr. Swapnil V. Walve for the petitioner.
Mr. V.N. Sagare, AGP for the State.
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.S. GADKARI, JJ . 23rd February, 2015.
P.C.
The petitioner was appointed in the year 2009 as Kotwal of Taluka Nandgaon, Post Dheku Khurd (Thanda), Dist. Nashik. The respondent Administration challenged the appointment of the petitioner by filing Misc. Application No. 346/2012. There was delay in approaching the Tribunal. The petition came to be dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 6th August, 2013 but while dismissing the application, the Tribunal observed in paragraph-8 as under:
“It is made clear that the respondent no.2 and respondent
wp1202.15.sxw
2/3
no.4 may inquire with regard tot he allegation that respondent no.1 is having three children and if that be true then the respondents may take appropriate action against the respondent no.1 for cancelling the selection and appointment.”
wp1202.15.sxw
accordance with policy of the State. No interference is warranted in the same.
(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
L.S. Panjwani, P.S.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a person who has given one child in adoption prior to appointment is protected under Maharashtra Civil Services (Declaration of Small Family) Rules, 2005.
Whether the Tahsildar's order cancelling appointment for having three children was sustainable in view of the adoption.
Whether the High Court should interfere in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction in the present facts.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Yashwant Devsing Chavan
The State of Maharashtra
State Administration
Naresh H. Patil
A.S. Gadkari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
