Bombay High Court
Indu Shivaji Batanpurkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 20 July, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 wp12225-15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12225 OF 2015
Smt.Indu d/o. Shivaji Batanpurkar,
Age : 32 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. Hanmantwadi, Latur,
Tq. and Dist. Latur ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai
School Education and Sports
2. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Latur,
Tq. and Dist. Latur
3. Pratibha Niketan High School,
Hanmantwadi,
Tq. and Dist. Latur,
Through its Headmaster ..Respondents
--
Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for petitioner
Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
Ms.Supriya L. Pansambal, Advocate for respondent
no.3
--
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : JULY 15, 2016
PRONOUNCED ON : JULY 20, 2016
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 10:05:43 :::
2 wp12225-15.odt
JUDGMENT (PER SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J) :
Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard
finally with consent of the learned Counsel for
the parties and the learned AGP.
2. The petitioner has impugned the
order/communication dated 03.12.2015 (Exhibit - I)
passed by respondent no.2 - Education Officer
(Secondary), Latur, whereby the proposal sent by
respondent no.3 seeking approval to the
appointment of the petitioner to the post of
Assistant Teacher came to be rejected.
3. The father of the petitioner namely,
Shivajirao Shravan Batanpurkar (hereinafter
referred to as "late Shivajirao") was working as
Head Master with respondent no.3. He died in
harness on 08.02.2014 leaving behind him, his
widow, three daughters (inclusive of the
petitioner) and one son. Though the petitioner is
3 wp12225-15.odt
married, her husband has deserted her since before
two years of filing of this Writ Petition. Other
two sisters of the petitioner are married, they
are residing at their respective matrimonial
houses. The brother of the petitioner namely,
Prashant could not prosecute his studies due to
the sad demise of Shivajirao. The educational
qualification of the petitioner is M.A., B.Ed.
Her mother, brother and other two sisters gave 'no
objection' for appointment of the petitioner as an
Assistance Teacher with respondent no.3 on
compassionate ground consequent upon the sad
demise of Shivajirao. Accordingly, the petitioner
applied for appointment on compassionate ground to
the post of Assistant Teacher. She undertook to
maintain the other family members of late
Shivajirao i.e. the mother and brother of the
petitioner.
4. Respondent no.2 appointed the petitioner
on compassionate ground as an Assistant Teacher
4 wp12225-15.odt
vide order dated 15.02.2014. Accordingly, the
petitioner joined the said post on 17.02.2014. On
the same day, respondent no.3 submitted a proposal
to respondent no.2 with necessary documents,
seeking approval to the appointment of the
petitioner as an Assistant Teacher on
compassionate ground. Respondent no.2 rejected the
said proposal on the sole ground that the
petitioner, being a married daughter of late
Shivajirao, is not entitled to be appointed on
compassionate ground in view of the Government
Resolution dated 31.12.2002 issued by the School
Education Department, Government of Maharashtra.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that in view of the judgment in (i) Aparna
Narendra Zambre Vs. Assistant Superintendent
Engineer, Krishna-Koyna Upsa Sinchan Project
Board, 2011(5) Mh.L.J.290 and (ii) unreported
judgment of this Court delivered on 27.10.2015 in
5 wp12225-15.odt
Writ Petition No.7482 of 2015 in the matter of
Smt. Kamalnayana w/o. Santosh Londhe Vs. The State
of Maharashtra and ors., a married daughter of the
deceased employee also has been held to be
entitled to get appointed on compassionate ground
on executing undertakings by her husband and
herself to maintain other family members of the
deceased employee. He further submits that
consequent upon the judgment in the case of Aparna
Narendra Zambre (supra), Government Resolution
dated 26.02.2013 came to be passed by the General
Administration Department, Government of
Maharashtra, making married daughter of the
deceased employee eligible for being considered
for appointment on compassionate ground on giving
undertakings by her husband and herself to
maintain other family members of the deceased
employee. He, therefore, submits that the ground,
on which the approval has been refused by
respondent no.2 to the appointment of the
6 wp12225-15.odt
petitioner as an Assistant Teacher on
compassionate ground, is not at all legal and
sustainable. He, therefore, prays that respondent
no.2 may be directed to extend approval to the
appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant
Teacher on compassionate ground.
6. The petition has been opposed by
respondent no.2 by filing affidavit-in-reply. He
tried to justify his decision to refuse approval
to the appointment of the petitioner as an
Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground with
respondent no.3 in view of the Government
Resolution dated 31.12.2002. It is stated that the
Government Resolution dated 26.02.2013 is not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
present case. On the strength of the averments
made in the reply, the learned AGP supports the
impugned order passed by respondent no.2 and prays
that the Writ Petition may be dismissed.
7 wp12225-15.odt
7. In the case of Aparna Narendra Zambre
(supra), the question for consideration was
whether, being married daughter of the deceased
employee, she would become ineligible for
appointment on compassionate ground. It was held
that Clause 3(a) of the Government Resolution
dated 26.10.1994 issued by General Administration
Department, Government of Maharashtra, which
excludes married daughter from consideration for
being appointed on compassionate ground, is
discriminatory, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
8. In the similar fact-situation, a married
daughter of the deceased employee was directed to
be considered for appointment on compassionate
ground after the demise of her father in the case
of Smt. Kamalnayana w/o. Santosh Londhe (supra).
9. In view of the above settled position of
law, the petitioner, who is married daughter of
late Shivajirao, cannot be discriminated and
8 wp12225-15.odt
denied the opportunity of appointment on
compassionate ground. The mother, brother and two
married sisters of the petitioner have given 'no
objection' for her appointment on compassionate
ground. The petitioner has undertaken to maintain
her mother and brother. She has been deserted by
her husband. Therefore, there is no question of
seeking undertaking from her husband. In the
circumstances, the impugned communication/order
passed by respondent no.2 refusing to extend
approval to the appointment of the petitioner as
an Assistant Teacher with respondent no.3 on
compassionate ground cannot be said to be legal
and valid. It is liable to be quashed and set
aside.
10. In the result, we pass the following
order :-
(i) The impugned communication/order dated
03.12.2015 issued by respondent no.2 refusing to
9 wp12225-15.odt
grant approval to the appointment of the
petitioner as an Assistant Teacher on
compassionate ground with respondent no.3 is
quashed and set aside.
(ii) Respondent no.2 is directed to reconsider
the proposal sent by respondent no.3 for approval
to the appointment of the petitioner on
compassionate ground and take appropriate decision
thereon on its own merits, as expeditiously as
possible, and within a period of six weeks from
today, without rejecting the proposal on the
ground, which has been mentioned by him in the
impugned communication/order dated 03.12.2015 and
communicate the decision to respondent no.3 and
the petitioner.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(iv) The Writ Petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
10 wp12225-15.odt
(v) No costs.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
kbp
