Maharashtra Rajya Anganwadi Balwadi Karmachari Union Buldhana, Thr. President Jaganprasad H. Mourya v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary Woman And Child Development Dept. Mumbai And 3 Others

wp5781-14.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION No. 5781 OF 2014 Mah. Rajya Anganwadi Balwadi Karmachari Union (AITUC) Buldhana through its President Shir Janganprasad s/o Halkeram Mourya -Vrs.- State of Mah. Through its Secretary, Woman and Child Development Deptt. Mantralaya, Mumbai and others.

_______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Ms. Bhavana M. Kasare, counsel for petitioner. Mr. Thakre, AGP for respondent no. 1 Mr. G.G. Mishra and Smt. I.L. Bodade, counsel for R-3 & 4. Mr. P.S. Khubalkar, counsel for R- 5, 6,8,9 & 10. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND P.N. DESHMUKH , JJ.

DATED : 6 th JANUARY, 2016 It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent Zilla Parishad is not required to make appointments on compassionate ground in view of the government resolution dated 6.12.2010. Therefore, it is contended that the appointments made on compassionate grounds by the respondent Zilla Parishad are not in accordance with law.

Perusal of the Government Resolution dated 6.12.2010 would reveal that it only provides for relaxation regarding age criteria and reducing the period for clearing typing examination from two years to six months from the date of appointment.

On the contrary, perusal of the Government

wp5781-14.odt Resolution dated 17.10.1989 would reveal that the provisions of making compassionate appointment on certain grounds have been made applicable mutatis mutandis even to the Zilla Parishads. In that view of the mater, the contentions as raised by the petitioner are without substance.

In any case, as to whether the present petitioner would be entitled to file the present petition or not is a serious issue. If any person is aggrieved by appointment of the respondents, such a person would be in a position to challenge the same. The petition is, therefore, without merit and as such is dismissed.

JUDGE JUDGE Hirekhan