Unexplained Removal from the Waiting List: A Breach of Fairness in Compassionate Appointment
Introduction:
The High Court of Bombay: Nagpur Bench passed a judgement on 03 April 2023. In the case of PORNIMA D/O MOHANSINGH PAWAR Vs ZILLA PARISHAD, GONDIA THR. ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ANR IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6257 OF 2022 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE R. B. DEO and HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, a provision that allows for the appointment of a dependent family member of a deceased employee, is intended to provide financial support and stability to families during times of tragedy. However, the implementation of this provision can sometimes be marred by administrative errors and unjust actions. In a recent judgment, the court rectified such an injustice, restoring hope to an aggrieved petitioner seeking compassionate appointment. This blog post explores the details of the case and the significance of the court’s decision.
Facts of the Case:
Ms. Pornima Mohansingh Pawar, the petitioner, had been on the waiting list for compassionate appointment since 2011. Her father, Mr. Mohansingh Pawar, had been an employee of Zilla Parishad, Gondia, until his untimely demise in 2005. Following her father’s death, Ms. Pawar’s mother, Smt. Premlata Mohansingh Pawar, applied for compassionate appointment and her name was included in the waiting list as per the applicable regulations.
In 2011, Ms. Premlata Mohansingh Pawar requested the authorities to replace her name with that of her daughter, Ms. Pornima Mohansingh Pawar. The request was accepted, and Ms. Pawar’s name was duly added to the waiting list. Over the years, Ms. Pawar’s name appeared on multiple iterations of the waiting list, validating the legitimacy of her claim for compassionate appointment.
However, to the petitioner’s dismay, the waiting list published on June 10, 2021, omitted her name without any prior notice or explanation. Instead, her mother’s name was listed as ineligible due to exceeding the age limit of 45 years. In light of this arbitrary removal, Ms. Pawar approached the court seeking redress.
Judgment:
After considering the submissions made by both parties, the court critically examined the records and relevant government decisions. It was noted that after Ms. Pawar reached the age of majority, her mother had applied to the authorities for the inclusion of Ms. Pawar’s name. The court questioned the respondents’ actions in removing Ms. Pawar’s name from the waiting list and subsequently denying her appointment based on her mother’s eligibility.
The court concluded that the removal of Ms. Pawar’s name without proper explanation and the denial of her appointment on the grounds of her mother’s eligibility were unjust and illegal. Emphasizing the due process followed in including Ms. Pawar’s name on the waiting list, the court held that the respondents’ actions were arbitrary and violated the principles of fairness and equality.
Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the respondent authorities of Zilla Parishad, Gondia, to restore Ms. Pawar’s name in the waiting list dated June 10, 2021, for compassionate appointment. The court further directed the authorities to consider Ms. Pawar’s appointment based on her serial number and educational qualifications.
Conclusion:
The judgment in this case serves as a significant milestone in rectifying an injustice faced by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment. It highlights the importance of adhering to due process, fairness, and equality in the implementation of such provisions. By restoring Ms. Pawar’s name in the waiting list and ordering consideration for appointment, the court not only provides relief to the petitioner but also sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. This judgment reaffirms the principle that individuals deserving of compassionate appointment should not be unjustly deprived of their rightful opportunity for stability and support.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW