{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 ....... 2026:BHC-AUG:46333-DB {2} wp13098-26.doc [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.] DATE : 30 th 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