The writ petition challenges the rejection of compassionate appointment for the petitioner on the basis of a Government Resolution dated 28/03/2001, which disqualifies family members of deceased employees from such appointments if a third child is born after 31/12/2001. The petitioner argues that this resolution cannot apply retrospectively to employees who were already in service before its implementation and that a more reasonable cut-off period of one year, as seen in similar legislation, should be applied. The Court agrees with the petitioner, allowing the writ petition and directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds.

1. Introduction

• The petition challenges the Government Resolution dated 28/03/2001, which prohibits compassionate appointments if a third child is born after 31/12/2001.
• Petitioner's father, an Assistant Teacher, died on 14/03/2009. The petitioner's application for a compassionate appointment was initially rejected due to a third child born after the cut-off date and a delay in application submission.

2. Previous Court Orders

• In Writ Petition No. 4113/2019, the Court directed the petitioner's name be included in the list of eligible candidates despite the delay in the application.
• The petitioner was placed second on the waiting list for compassionate appointments.

3. Financial and Family Health Conditions

• The family's financial condition is poor, with the petitioner's brother suffering from physical disability and the sister from sickle cell anemia.
• Despite being on the eligible list, the petitioner's request for appointment was denied due to the third child born after the cut-off date.

4. Legal Arguments

• The petitioner argues that the 2005 Maharashtra Civil Services (Declaration of Small Family) Rules should not retroactively apply to employees already in service before 28/04/2005.
• Similar disqualification clauses in other statutes provide a one-year grace period for the birth of a third child after the commencement of the act, which was not considered in the impugned resolution.

5. Court's Analysis

• The Court notes that other legislation grants a one-year grace period to accommodate conception periods around the time of new rules.
• The cut-off date of 31/12/2001, set in the resolution, does not provide adequate notice and is not based on discernible principles.

6. Conclusion

• The Court finds the cut-off date unjustified and agrees with the petitioner that a one-year period from the issuance of the resolution should be applied.
• The petition is allowed, and the cut-off date in the resolution is to be read as 28/03/2002.

7. Court's Order

• The communication dated 21/03/2023 rejecting the petitioner's application is quashed.
• The petitioner is entitled to a compassionate appointment.
• The respondent, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, is directed to issue an appointment order within three months.