Bombay High Court
ROHIT SYRYAKANTRAO MALIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court held that, under the 2025 Government Resolution permitting substitution within three years of attaining age 45, the petitioner is entitled to have his name substituted for his mother’s in the compassionate appointment waiting list.
Summary
The petitioner, Rohit Mali, sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to substitute his name for his mother’s in the compassionate appointment waiting list after his father’s death. The mother had applied repeatedly for a compassionate appointment but her applications were either not processed or rejected for procedural deficiencies. The respondents argued that the mother’s name was never on the waiting list and that the petition was filed beyond the statutory age limit. The court examined the applicable government resolutions, prior case law permitting substitution, and the fact that the mother’s name appeared on the 2019‑2020 waiting list. It noted that the 2025 Government Resolution allows substitution within three years of the candidate reaching 45 years. Consequently, the court held that the petition was within the limitation and ordered the substitution. The order directed the respondents to complete the substitution within 15 days, granting liberty to file any required application in prescribed format.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to substitution of his name for his mother’s in the compassionate appointment waiting list.
- Whether the applications filed by the mother were procedurally valid and within the statutory time‑limit.
- Whether the respondents erred in refusing to process the substitution despite the applicable government resolution and precedent.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- substitution of name
- waiting list
- government resolution
- age limit
- writ of mandamus
- administrative law
- disability welfare
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:24257-DB
5-wp-468-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.468 OF 2024
Rohit s/o Suryakantrao Mali
Age: 25 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o. Degloor, Tq. Degloor,
Shivba Nagar Bhaktapur Road,
District Nanded .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Concerned Department Mantralaya,
Mumbai-21.
2. The Social Welfare Officer,
Latur, District Latur.
3. The District Social Welfare Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded, District Nanded.
4. The Secretary,
Sughd Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Udgir Road, Dgloor,
Dist. Nanded.
5. The Headmaster,
Blind School, Behind Manave
Vikas High School, Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. .. Respondents
…
Mr. G. J. Karne, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.
Mr. Syed Parvez, Advocate h/f Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr. R. V. Gunale, Advocate h/f Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for respondent No.5.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 22 JUNE 2026
[1]
5-wp-468-2024.odt
ORDER :
. Present petition has been filed for issuing writ of mandamus or
directions against the respondents to substitute the name of the
petitioner in place of his mother Smt. Anita Suryakantrao Mali for giving
appointment on compassionate ground.
2. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner namely
Suryakantrao Ramrao Mali was serving as Superintendent with
respondent Nos.4 and 5. He expired on 10.06.2009 leaving behind wife
Smt. Anita, daughter Rohini and petitioner Son.
3. The petitioner has come with the case that immediately after
Suryakantrao expired, his widow Smt. Anita had made application to the
Commissioner, Disability Welfare Commissionerate, Pune on 01.07.2009.
Copy of the same was also given to respondent No.3, however, no action
was taken. It has come by way of additional affidavit of the petitioner
that by application dated 10.12.2009, the mother of the petitioner had
taken objection for appointment of another person and again made
request for her appointment on compassionate basis. The Commissioner,
Disability Welfare Commissionerate, Pune, thereafter addressed a
communication dated 05.01.2010 to respondent No.3 forwarding the
application submitted by Smt. Anita seeking appointment on
[2]
5-wp-468-2024.odt
compassionate grounds and calling for a report regarding her
appointment. However, it appears that no further steps were taken in that
regard. Subsequently, Smt. Anita again pursued her claim for
compassionate appointment in the year 2018. The documents on record
further indicate that her name was included in the waiting list for the
year 2019–2020. However, a remark was recorded stating that the
application was not submitted in the prescribed proforma, the requisite
affidavit had not been filed and no proposal had been forwarded by the
school. It appears that on 22.04.2018, Smt. Anita has then given an
application that due to ill health, she is unable to pursue the application
for appointment on compassionate basis and then she requested that the
name of the present petitioner be replaced in her name. Separate
application has also been given by the present petitioner on 26.05.2019.
When there is no action taken, again in a proforma the petitioner has
filed application on 21.02.2022. Still there is no action. Hence, the
petition.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through all the
documents and submitted that the petitioner's mother is suffering from a
knee problem and is undergoing treatment under an orthopaedic doctor.
A medical certificate to that effect has been produced on record. It is
further submitted that, considering her advanced age and medical
[3]
5-wp-468-2024.odt
condition, she is unable to take up the employment. He relies on the
decision of the Full Bench of this in Kalpana wd/o Vilas Taram and
another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [Writ Petition No.3701 of
2022 with companion matters decided on 28.05.2024] wherein it has
been held that the substitution of the name in the waiting list for
compassionate appointment is permissible. So also, if a person is seeking
substitution of the name of another person in place of a member, who
had applied on account of crossing the age limit of 45 years, then it is not
contrary to the object and the purpose for which the compassionate
appointment must be granted. He then also relies on the order passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govind Janardan Gaikwad Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, (Civil Appeal No.7489 of 2023 decided on
06.11.2023) wherein also the substitution was allowed. He also relies on
the decision of this Court in Latika Uttam Mahajan Vs. The State of
Maharashtra Through its Secretary and others, [Writ Petition No.12897
of 2023 decided on 21.12.2023].
5. There is no affidavit-in-reply by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Affidavit
of Mr. Satendra s/o Virendra Aulwar, the District Social Welfare Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded has been filed. It has been stated by him that the
name of the petitioner’s mother was never taken in the waiting list. She
was not eligible for getting appointment on compassionate ground. The
[4]
5-wp-468-2024.odt
father of the petitioner died on 10.06.2009. Therefore, the policy of
compassionate appointment existed at the relevant time needs to be
considered. The Government Resolution dated 22.08.2005 provides for
the time limit for making application to the competent authority for
seeking compassionate appointment. Though the upper age limit was
extended to 45 years for candidates, whose names were included in the
waiting list, such candidates were liable to be removed from the waiting
list upon attaining the age of 45 years. According to him, the petitioner
has made application to the office of respondent No.3 in the year 2015.
He claims ignorance as to whether petitioner has made any application to
the management within time or not. Respondent No.3 vide
communication dated 08.09.2015 informed respondent Nos.4 and 5 to
submit the proposal in prescribed format complying of the requirements
in tune of existing policy, however, neither the petitioner’s mother, nor
the school authorities had submitted the proposal with requisite
documents to respondent No.3 and, therefore, her name was not taken in
the waiting list. According to him certain applications were never
submitted to the office of respondent No.3. Interestingly, in the affidavit,
he has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Fertilizers
and Chemicals Travancore Limited and Others Vs. Anusree K. B., [2022
DGLS (SC) 1269], in respect of explaining the object behind introducing
[5]
5-wp-468-2024.odt
the policy of compassionate appointment.
6. It has been told that learned Advocate for respondent No.3 has
filed leave note. Time and again this Court has explained that the leave
notes of Advocates are not binding and furthermore as per the Appellate
Side Rules, it is the bounden duty of the Advocate proceeding on leave to
make arrangement for the submissions in the matter. Anyway,
unnecessary adjournments deserve to be deprecated. Though learned
Advocate Mr. Syed Parvez appears on behalf of learned Advocate Mr. S. B.
Pulkundwar for respondent No. 3, he submits that he is only appearing to
bring to the notice of the Court that Mr. Pulkundwar has filed a leave
note. Since a leave note is not binding on the Court, we proceed with the
matter by taking into consideration the documents that have been placed
on record. We also take note of the affidavit-in-reply dated 29.02.2024
filed on behalf of respondent No.3.
7. Here, it is to be noted that respondent No.3 i.e. the affiant
Mr. Satendra s/o Virendra Aulwar, the District Social Welfare Officer,
proceeded on the fact that no application was filed prior to 2015.
However, after making some submissions on 18.04.2026, it appears that
the liberty was granted to the petitioner to file documents on affidavit
within a period of two weeks and then liberty was given to the
[6]
5-wp-468-2024.odt
respondents of file reply within a period of four weeks. Accordingly, the
affidavit has been filed on 24.04.2026, which has been then received by
the learned Advocate for respondent No.3. Along with the said affidavit
the petitioner has given the copy of the application filed by the mother on
01.07.2009, which was addressed to the Commissioner, Disability Welfare
Commissionerate, Pune and copy of the same was given to respondent
No.3. Now, there is no refutal on the part of respondent No.4 in respect
of receipt of the said document. The fact that is required to be then
noted is that Commissioner, Disability Welfare Commissionerate, Pune by
his communication dated 05.01.2010 had directed respondent No.3 to
consider the application filed by Smt. Anita on 01.07.2009. That means,
there were two ways in which respondent No.3 had received the
application dated 01.07.2009 and respondent No.3 had the knowledge
that Smt. Anita was claiming to be appointed on the compassionate basis
after the death of her husband. Surprisingly, the affidavit is totally silent
and it appears that the affiant has not even considered his own
documents. Another fact to be noted is that the copy of waiting list for
the year 2019-2020 has been produced along with the petition. Still, he
has not disowned the said list by stating that it is not prepared by his
office. There cannot be a waiting list of the candidates, whose application
has been rejected. Interestingly, this list in the year 2019-2020 is inclusive
[7]
5-wp-468-2024.odt
of the names of the candidates, whose applications have been rejected or
in a sense they have been held ineligible. Along with the affidavit,
respondent No.3 has not filed copy of the communication by which the
ineligibility of Smt. Anita was communicated to her. At no point of time
it appears that it was informed to Smt. Anita that her application has
been rejected. Informing the candidate of the rejection of his candidature
or taking an appropriate decision regarding inclusion of the name for
compassionate appointment is mandatory on the part of the institution
and the concerned officers.
8. Respondent No.3 is insisting on the fact that proposal was not
received from respondent Nos.4 and 5. Merely stating that that he is not
aware as to whether the petitioner had made any application to the
management within prescribed time cannot absolve the respondent No.3
from his own duties. Interestingly, it is stated in the affidavit-in-reply
that when the petitioner made an application in the year 2015,
respondent No.3, by communication dated 08.09.2015, informed
respondent Nos.4 and 5 that the proposal should be submitted in the
prescribed format. This clearly indicates that cognizance of the
petitioner's application had been taken in the year 2015. Though
respondent No.3 was aware of the date of death of the petitioner's father
as well as the time limit prescribed under the Government Resolutions,
[8]
5-wp-468-2024.odt
the said application was not directly rejected by respondent No.3.
9. The record, particularly the additional affidavit filed by the
petitioner, reflects that Smt. Anita had submitted her claim by an
application dated 01.07.2009. However, there is nothing on record to
show that respondent No.3 had submitted any report to respondent No.2
or to the competent authority, which had issued the communication
dated 05.01.2010, stating that the application was liable to be rejected
for not being in the prescribed format. There is also no material to
indicate that any steps were taken to have the application submitted in
the prescribed format. The note to the letter dated 05.01.2010 shows that
a copy was given to Smt. Anita and it was stated that she should contact
respondent No.3 for submitting the application. The persuasion by
Smt. Anita for getting a job on compassionate basis can be seen from the
copies of other communications placed on record.
10. It appears from the record that on 22.04.2018 some application
appears to have been given by Smt. Anita for replacing her name from
waiting list with the name of her son, since she was unable to take up the
job due to health issues. The copy that has been given at page No.19
cannot be considered in view of the fact that it bears the signature of
Smt. Anita, but not the acknowledgment. There appears to be another
[9]
5-wp-468-2024.odt
letter or application given by her on 17.03.2020 along with certain
document, but then the fact remains is that the present petitioner has
also filed an application on 26.05.2019 for replacement of his name in
the name of his mother.
11. The point regarding substitution is not res integra in view of the
decision by the Full Bench of this Court in Kalpana Vilas Taram (Supra).
Same view has been taken in Govinda Janardan Gaikwad (Supra) by
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Here, important fact even now that is required
to be considered is that as per the heirship certificate dated 23.07.2009,
the age of the present petitioner was 13 years, when he lost his father. He
could have then set up his claim immediately after the attainment of
majority, but then at that time it can be seen that name of his mother was
appearing in the waiting list of 2019-2020. We do not agree with the
affiant’s statement that her name was not included at all. Another fact
which he states in his affidavit is that in the month of March 2020, the
age of the mother of the petitioner was 45 years. He submits that the
petitioner initiated the process for substitution of his name in place of his
mother only after she had crossed the age of 45 years. Since his affidavit
was filed prior to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Kalpana
Vilas Taram (supra), he has made a statement that the policy does not
permit substitution of the name of a person who has crossed the age of
[10]
5-wp-468-2024.odt
45 years. Now, that statement cannot be considered at all. While
considering the matter as on today and since the petitioner's application
is still pending, we must also take note of the subsequent Government
Resolution. Clause VII (b)(2) of the Government Resolution dated
17.07.2025 provides that an application for substitution may be filed
within a period of three years from the date on which the candidate in
the waiting list attains the age of 45 years. Therefore, the application
pending before respondent No.3 can be said to be within limitation, and
the said authority is required to process the same. Therefore, taking into
consideration all these aspects, we pass the following order :-
ORDER
I) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
II) The respondents are directed to substitute the name of the
petitioner in place of his mother Smt. Anita Suryakantrao Mali for
giving appointment on compassionate ground.
III) We also grant liberty to the petitioner that in case
respondent No.3 is of the view that an application in the prescribed
format is required to be submitted through respondent Nos.4 and
5, then either the petitioner shall submit the requisite application
[11]
5-wp-468-2024.odt
or respondent No.3 shall obtain the same and process it through
respondent Nos.4 and 5. This exercise shall be completed within a
period of 15 days, and thereafter the substitution may be carried
out.
[ SACHIN S. DESHMUKH ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
scm
[12]
Checking your session…