(Per : Vinay Joshi, J.)
1. Heard. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. The matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.860 of 2019, the State has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. The facts can be stated briefly that, respondent no.1’s father Rupchand was serving as a Driver under the establishment of petitioner no.1 Water Resources Department. His appointment was made on regular basis by following due procedure. Respondent no.1’s father died in harness on 27.03.2006. Elder brother of respondent no.1 namely Kamlesh has applied on 08.09.2006 for an appointment on compassionate ground. However, within short period of one year, Kamlesh has filed an application for substituting his name with the name of respondent no.1 Prashant for giving appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was processed. Certain compliances were got done from respondent no.1 Prashant, however vide communication dated 25.06.2018 substitution was rejected on the ground that it is impermissible. Being aggrieved, respondent no.1 Prashant had filed an original application No.860 of 2019 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal by placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in case of Dnyaneshwar Ramkishan Musane vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2020(5) Mh.L.J., Smt. Vandana wd/o Shankar Nikure and one another vs. State of Maharashtra and two ors. (Writ Petition No.3251/2020) passed on 24.08.2021 and Nagmi Firdos Mohammad Salim and anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. (In Writ Petition No.4559/2018) passed on 15.12.2021, has allowed the application and directed the Employer to consider the case of Prashant for grant of appointment on compassionate ground.
5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the Tribunal erred in allowing the substitution, which was against the Policy. It is contended that brother of respondent no.1 Kamlesh had already claimed for an appointment on compassionate ground and his urge was accepted. It is contended that since Kamlesh has applied for substitution, it is beyond the scope of policy to make substitution. According to the State, the Tribunal failed to consider the Policy resulted into committing serious error.
6. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held substitution permissible based on three decisions rendered by this Court. It has been expressed that, if one legal representative of deceases seeks for substitution, it is unjustified to reject the substitution. Moreover, in absence of specific clause, it cannot be held that there is express prohibition for the substitution. Recently, Full Bench of this Court in case of Kalpana wd/o Vilas Taram and anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. (Writ Petition No.3701/2022 decided on 28.05.2024) with other connected matters, has dealt the issue extensively and ruled that substitution of the name is within the four corners of the aims and objects of the compassionate appointment, and thus, it is permissible.
7. In view of said decision, we see no reason to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal. In view of that, the petition is dismissed.
8. Rule stands discharged. No costs
