← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/10115/2015rejected at admission stage

Sujata Shivanand Gudgunti v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2016-08-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sangitrao S. Patil,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S.S. Shinde2 pages

10115.15WP FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ______________________________________________________ WRIT PETITION NO. 10115 OF 2015 SUJATA SHIVANAND GUDGUNTI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.S.S. Phatale holding for Mr. Deshmukh Mahesh S.

AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.D. Kaldate ...

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

Dated: August 04, 2016 ...

By way of filing the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order passed by Respondent No.2 - University dated 26.06.2015 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the services of the husband of the petitioner were terminated only on the ground that he did not submit the caste validity certificate. It is submitted that the

10115.15WP Petition, challenging the notice issued by authorities asking explanation why his services should not be terminated, was filed, however, during the pendency of the said Petition, the services of the husband of the petitioner came to be terminated. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Petition deserves consideration.

3.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at length.

However, he has not brought to our notice any provision/scheme, which provides for appointment on compassionate ground to the heirs of employee, whose services have been terminated by the Respondent - University.

4.

In that view of the matter, we are unable to persuade ourself to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner. Hence the Petition stands rejected.

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL,J) (S.S. SHINDE,J) sga/