Bombay High Court

SUNANDA BHUJANG MASKE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

A petitioner cannot seek substitution of his name in the waiting list after the elder brother’s name has been deleted, and the tribunal’s dismissal of the application is lawful.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay heard four writ petitions challenging the dismissal of applications for substitution of names in a compassionate appointment waiting list. All petitions were heard together because they raised common issues. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 8116 of 2026, which held that a petitioner cannot seek substitution once the elder sibling’s name has been removed from the waiting list. The tribunal’s order dismissing the original applications was found to be lawful and not perverse. The Court observed that the petitioners had not contested the deletion of the elder brother’s name and that the challenge was filed after an inordinate delay. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed for lack of merit.

Issues considered

Whether a petitioner can seek substitution of his name in place of an elder sibling after the sibling's name has been deleted from the waiting list.
Whether the tribunal’s order dismissing the application is illegal or perverse warranting interference under Article 226.
Whether the delay of three years in filing the writ petition defeats the petitioner's claim.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 226

Subjects

compassionate appointment
substitution of name
waiting list
tribunal order
writ petition
Article 226
high court jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:46336-DB


                                                {1}                wp13098-26.doc
                 drp
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO.13098 OF 2026

                 Salim Shabbir Tadavi                              PETITIONER
                      VERSUS
                 The State of Maharashtra and Others             RESPONDENTS

                                                .......
                 Mr. D. R. Jethliya, Advocate for the Petitioner
                 Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for Respondent - State
                                                .......
                                                 AND
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.12914 OF 2026

                 Vishal Uttam Jadhav                            PETITIONER
                        VERSUS
                 The State of Maharashtra and Others          RESPONDENTS
                                               .......
                 Mr. V. B. Dhage, Advocate for the Petitioner
                 Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent - State
                                                ....…
                                                AND
                                WRIT PETITION NO.12866 OF 2026

                 Nilabai Piraji Mamulwar and Another            PETITIONERS
                       VERSUS
                 The State of Maharashtra and Others           RESPONDENTS
                                                .......
                 Mr. H. P. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner
                 Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondent - State
                                                .......
                                                AND
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.12879 OF 2026

                 Sunanda Bhujang Maske and Another                 PETITIONERS
                       VERSUS
                 The State of Maharashtra and Others             RESPONDENTS
                                                .......
                 Mr. H. P. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner
                 Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondent - State
                                                .......
                                      {2}                       wp13098-26.doc

              [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
                       ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.]

                       DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026

ORDER :

1.       Since common issues are involved in these Petitions, the

same are heard together and are being decided by this common

order.


2.       The issues raised in these petitions are squarely covered

by the decision of this Court dated 22nd July, 2026 in Writ Petition

No. 8116 of 2026 (Shivkumar Bhimrao Chamkure V/s the State

of Maharashtra and Others), wherein this Court has held as

follows:


     “7.      We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
     AGP for the State and also perused the impugned order as well as
     the said Government Resolution. Indisputably, after demise of
     petitioner’s mother, his elder brother had applied for the
     appointment on compassionate ground. At the relevant time, the
     Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017 thereby prescribing the
     procedure for the appointment on compassionate ground was
     holding field. In the said Government Resolution, there was no
     provision for substitution of the name of member of the family. It is a
     matter of record that, after completing the age of 45 years, the name
     of petitioner’s elder brother was removed from the waiting list on
     21.09.2020 itself, whereas the petitioner applied for substitution of
     his name in place of his elder brother on 30.09.2020 when his
     brother’s name did not subsist in the waiting list.
                                      {3}                         wp13098-26.doc


     8.      Admittedly, the petitioner did not challenge the deletion of his
     elder brother’s name from the waiting list nor his elder brother
     challenged the same at any point of time. We are therefore of the
     considered view that the petitioner cannot seek substitution of his
     name in place of his elder brother once his name was already deleted
     from the waiting list. The Tribunal therefore has rightly dismissed the
     Original Application filed by the petitioner on this ground.

     9.      It is pertinent to note that, under the garb of challenging
     Clause-5 of the said Government Resolution, the petitioner has
     approached this Court after almost a period of three years from the
     date of passing of impugned order. Once the petitioner is held to be
     disentitle for substitution of his name in the place of his elder brother
     it hardly matters whether judgment of the full bench of this Court
     apply prospectively or retrospectively. In short, the petitioner is
     espousing a cause which does not survive. The fact remains that the
     basic challenge in the Writ Petition is to the impugned order passed
     by the Tribunal. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the
     impugned order which warrants interference under Article 226 of the
     Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is, therefore, devoid of any
     substance and the same is accordingly dismissed.”


3.    For the aforestated reasons, we find no merit in the Writ

Petitions and the same are therefore, dismissed.



[ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ]                          [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
       JUDGE                                               JUDGE

drp/wp13098-26.doc

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…