Disposed

Mohammad Junaid Shaikh Usman Pinjari v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC10 Dec 2018WP/8260/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil judge granted appointment on compassionate ground for petitioner whose father died while in service. Court directed institution to forward proposal for placement on wait list and appoint petitioner when vacancy arises.

What did the court decide?

Resident institution to forward proposal for appointment on compassionate ground within four weeks; maintain petitioner on wait list; direct appointment when vacancy arises.

Mohammad Junaid Shaikh Usman Pinjari Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

15-wp.8260.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.8260 OF 2016

¶4

Mohammad Junaid s/o. Shaikh
Usman Pinjari (Mansuri)

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra
and others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Mrs.Jayshri Reddy, Advocate for petitioner

¶10

Mr.S.B.Joshi, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5

¶11

Mr.S.S.Kazi, Advocate for respondent no.6

¶12

Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondent no.8

¶13

 CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
 DATE : DECEMBER 10, 2018

¶14

PER COURT

¶15

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
the learned AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 and 8 and
the learned Counsel for respondent nos.6 and 8.

¶16

2.The petitioner is seeking appointment on
compassionate ground. The grievance of the petitioner
is that his father died on 14.12.2014 while in
service with the respondent as Junior Clerk.
However, the case of the petitioner has not been
considered. In the interregnum, respondent no.8 came
to be appointed as a Clerk. According to the learned
Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had filed
an application immediately. However, the same was not
accepted. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached
the respondent – authority. The respondent authority
directed the respondent – Institution to appoint the
petitioner. However, the respondent – Institution did
not comply with those directions.

¶17

3.Learned Counsel for the respondent –

¶18

Institution submits that the Institution did not
receive the application of the petitioner within the
prescribed period of limitation and it was received
subsequently, after the selection process had
commenced.

¶19

3 15-wp.8260

¶20

4.The learned Counsel for respondent no.8
submits that pursuant to the advertisement,
respondent no.8 has been selected.

¶21

5.There is no dispute with regard to the date
on which, the petitioner had submitted the
application seeking appointment on compassionate
ground. It appears that there does not appear to be
any vacancy at present with the respondent -
Institution.

¶22

6.In the light of that, respondent no.7 -
Institution shall forward the proposal to the
Education Officer for appointment of the petitioner
on compassionate ground within four weeks from today.

¶23

The Education Officer shall maintain the name of the
petitioner in the wait list of the persons to be
appointed on compassionate ground. The Education
Officer shall direct appointment of the petitioner to

¶24

be made in respondent no.7 – Institution or in any

¶25

4 15-wp.8260

¶26

other institution, in case vacancy arises, as per the

¶27

turn of the petitioner.

¶28

7.With the above directions, the Writ Petition
stands disposed of. No costs.

¶29

kbp

Mohammad Junaid Shaikh Usman Pinjari v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Junaid Shaikh Usman Pinjari 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

Vinod Ninu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kedarnath Dwarkadas Mantri Vs Municipal Council , Ambad

Addl Registrar High Court Abad Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Sudhakar Sanduji Gandhile Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation through the Chief Executive Officer Mumbai

Kashinath Piraji Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nandkishor Damodar Upasani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others