Allowed

Manisha Vilas Vane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Nov 2016WP/10368/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, quashed an order rejecting a compassionate appointment proposal. The Court directed the institution to submit the proposal afresh within eight weeks along with documents, excluding ban period as a single ground for rejection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside. Petitioner directed to submit death certificate; institution to forward proposal afresh within eight weeks.

Manisha Vilas Vane Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP 10368/15

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.10368/2015

¶5

Manisha W/o Vilas Vane.

¶6

 ...Petitioner..

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶9

 ...Respondents..

¶10

 .....

¶11

Shri N.D.Sonavane,Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms.R.P.Gour, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶12

 .....

¶13

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & K.L. WADANE, JJ.

¶14

DATE: 21.11.2016

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

1]Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule

¶17

made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for
final disposal at this stage.

¶18

2]Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶19

proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the
petitioner as Laboratory Assistant on compassionate
ground is rejected.

¶20

3]Learned AGP states that alongwith the proposal, the

¶21

WP 10368/15 - 2 -

¶22

death certificate was not annexed. The learned AGP
submits that it is not clear whether the vacancy had
existed. The delay in forwarding the proposal is also
not clarified so also the appointment was during the ban
period.

¶23

4]Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now
the petitioner possesses the death certificate and there
is a clear vacancy as per the staffing pattern approved
by the Education Department.

¶24

5]Considering the above, the impugned order is quashed
and set aside. The petitioner shall submit the copy of
the death certificate with the respondent institution.
The respondent institution shall forward the proposal to
the Education Officer seeking approval to the appointment
of the petitioner afresh alongwith the staffing pattern
at the relevant time and all other documents preferably
within a period of eight weeks.

¶25

6]As none appears for the respondent nos.3 & 4, though
served, the petitioner shall communicate this order to
the respondent nos.3 & 4. On receipt of the said
proposal, the Education Officer shall decide the said
proposal afresh in accordance with law and shall not

¶26

WP 10368/15

¶27

reject it only on the ground that the appointment of the
petitioner was during the ban period as the appointment
is on compassionate ground.

¶28

7]Rule is made absolute on above terms. No costs.

¶29

(K.L. WADANE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶30

ndk/ c21111627.doc

Manisha Vilas Vane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Vilas Vane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Gangadhar Dattaramji Wadde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jai Tulja Bhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Jai Tulja Bhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rajesh Shankarrao Rapte Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sheetal Dagadu Undare Vs the Secretary and Anothers

Vijay Fadya Pawara Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others