Bombay High Court
VISHAL UTTAM JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
A petitioner cannot seek substitution of his name once the original family member's name has been deleted from the waiting list, and the tribunal's order dismissing the application is valid.
Summary
The Bombay High Court heard four writ petitions challenging the dismissal of applications for compassionate appointment on the ground of substitution of a family member's name on a waiting list. All petitioners sought to replace the name of an elder brother, who had been removed from the waiting list after turning 45, with their own name. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 8116 of 2026, which held that substitution is not permissible once the original name has been deleted from the list. It found no illegality or perversity in the tribunal’s order and noted that the petitioners had not contested the deletion of the elder brother’s name. Consequently, the Court dismissed all the writ petitions as devoid of substance, finding no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues considered
- Whether a petitioner can seek substitution of his name in place of a family member on a compassionate appointment waiting list after the family member's name has been removed.
- Whether the tribunal's order dismissing the substitution application is illegal or perverse.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the tribunal's order under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. 226
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- substitution of name
- waiting list
- Article 226
- writ petition
- tribunal order
- Maharashtra
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:46334-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
Checking your session…