✦ Bombay High Court · 22 Oct 2007

Omkar Madan Velhal v. The Education Officer & Ors.

Writ Petition No. 5478 of 2007D G KARNIK, S B MHASE

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 22. We are not inclined to entertain the petition for two reasons. Firstly, the petitioner’s mother died on 14th February 1999; more than 8 years have since passed eliminating any ground need to tide over a financial crisis arising out of the death. Secondly, the…

Judgment

Mr. R. M. Kolge for the petitioner. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & D.G.KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & D.G.KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & D.G.KARNIK,JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 22, 2007. DATE : OCTOBER 22, 2007. DATE : OCTOBER 22, 2007. P.C. P.C.P.C.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition the petitioner challenges the communication dated 6th February 2007 issued by the respondent no.2 rejecting the petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate ground.

2.

We are not inclined to entertain the petition for two reasons. Firstly, the petitioner’s mother died on 14th February 1999; more than 8 years have since passed eliminating any ground need to tide over a financial crisis arising out of the death. Secondly, the petitioner’s father is employed in the Zilla Parishad, Sangli and draws a salary of :2::2::2: Rs.13,000/- per month. The grand father of the petitioner, with whom the the petitioner allegedly stays is also drawing pension. This is not a case of penury of financial crises arising out of untimely death of a sole breadwinner in the family. Petitioner’s family has a reasonable amount of income. Appointments on compassionate ground are an exception to the rule of equal opportunity in employment contained in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. As the petitioner is not suffering from any penury, the petitioner cannot by-pass the rule of equality and claim employment on compassionate grounds. In the circumstances the petition is rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.G.KARNIK, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.G.KARNIK, J.)

(S.B.MHASE, J.)

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Constitution of India — arts. 14, 16.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 22 Oct 2007. The bench was D G KARNIK, S B MHASE.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 5478 of 2007). ← Search more judgments