State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mumbai And Others v. Mayur S/O Ramkrushna Uikey

2025:BHC-NAG:2765-DB 1 944.wp.6565.23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6565/2023 State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vs.

Mayur s/o. Ramkrushna Uikey - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S. M. Ghodeswar, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. A. K. Waghmare, Advocate for Respondent.

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : 19/03/2025.

.

Heard Mr. Ghodeswar, learned A.G.P.

appearing for the petitioners State.

2.

The challenge in the petition is to the order dated 14.11.2022 passed in Original Application No.1148/2021 [Mayur s/o. Remkrushna Uikey and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.] by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. 3.

Vide order impugned, the original application preferred by the respondent came to be allowed with directions to the petitioners to issue appointment order in favour of the respondent Mayur on the compassionate ground considering the placement of the respondent in the seniority list which is at Sr. No.67.

4.

Basically, writ petition is preferred on the ground that the substitution of the candidature was not permissible as the original candidature was that of Bhagyashree, daughter of the deceased.

5.

The Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the matter of Kalpana wd/o. Vilas Taram and Anr. Vs. State of

2 944.wp.6565.23 Maharashtra and Ors. [Writ Petition No.3701/2022]. this Court has already decided the issue of permissibility of substitution.

6.

In the aforesaid background, the ground on which the petitioner is preferred, no more survives. 7.

That being so, the petition stands dismissed. 8.

We deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to issue appointment order pursuant to the order of the Tribunal expeditiously and in any case within a period of eight weeks from today.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) RGurnule