Komal Padmakar Bhangale vs Education Officer Zilla Parishad ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3293 Bom

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 6595 OF 2004


Miss. Komal Padmakar Bhangale
Age : 20 years, Occu.: Nil, 
R/o.: Plot No.5, Sadobanagar,
Near Hira Pipe, Jalgaon                                    PETITIONER

       VERSUS

1.     Education Officer (Sec.),
       Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon

2.     Kashibai Ukhaji Kolhe,
       Vidyalaya, Jalgaon,
       through its Headmaster,
       Vithal Peth, Near Neri Naka,
       Jalgaon

3.     Joint Secretary,
       School Committee,
       Kashibai Ukhaji Kolhe Vidyalya,
       Vithal Peth, Near Neri Naka,
       Jalgaon

4.     State of Maharashtra,
       Through Secretary,
       School Education Department,
       Mantralaya, Mumbai-32                               RESPONDENTS


                          ----
Mr. Sushant V. Dixit, Advocate holding for 
Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate for the Petitioner
Mrs.P.V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 4
Mr. Hemantkumar Pawar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3
                          ----


                                    CORAM :   T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                              SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

                                    DATE  :   16th JUNE, 2017


     ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017                ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:33:02 :::
                                      2                        wp6595-2004


JUDGMENT (PER : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) :

The petitioner has challenged the

communication dated 5th November, 2003 made by the

Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,

Jalgaon, refusing approval to the petitioner's

appointment on compassionate ground to the post of

Junior Clerk.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 4 and the

learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. The petitioner's mother was working as an

Assistant Teacher in respondent No.2 - School. She

died on 13th October, 2000. The petitioner applied for

appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, she

was appointed as Junior Clerk as per the order dated

24th August, 2002. She actually joined on 2 nd September,

2002. The proposal for grant of approval to the

appointment of the petitioner was sent to respondent

No.1 - Education Officer. He refused to extend

approval on the ground that as per the Government

Resolutions dated 1st March, 2000, 10th March, 2003 and

1st August, 2003, there was ban for filling up the non-

3 wp6595-2004

teaching posts at the relevant time.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that there is clarification to the circular

dated 1st March, 2000 as per the Government Resolution

dated 29th June, 2000, issued by the Finance Department

wherein it has been made clear that the circular dated

1st March, 2000 would not be applicable to the

appointments made on compassionate ground. He submits

that the circular dated 10th March, 2003 and the letter

dated 19th April, 2003 can not be made applicable with

retrospective effect to the appointment of the

petitioner which was made on 24th August, 2002.

5. The learned A.G.P. tried to justify the

impugned communication on the basis of the above-

mentioned circular and letters.

6. As clarified in the Government Resolution

dated 29th June, 2000, the circular dated 1st March,

2000 would not be applicable to the appointments made

on compassionate ground. The another circular dated

10th March, 2003 as well as the letter dated 19 th April,

2003 cannot be given retrospective effect so as to

make them applicable to the appointment of the

4 wp6595-2004

petitioner vide order dated 24th August, 2002. The

appointment on compassionate ground is made as a

special case to give solace to the family of the

deceased employee because due to untimely death of

such an employee, his/her family members are put to

suffer a great hardship due to loss of earning hand.

The circulars referred to above certainly cannot be

made applicable to such appointment. In the

circumstances, the impugned communication, which is

against the very concept behind appointment on

compassionate ground, cannot sustain. Respondent No.1

was not at all right in refusing approval to the

appointment of the petitioner on the basis of the

above-referred circulars/letter. The impugned

communication is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

Hence, we pass the following order.

                                  O R D E R


  (i)         The Writ Petition is allowed.


  (ii)        The   communication   dated   5th  November,   2003

issued by the Education Officer (Secondary),

Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon - Respondent No.1 is

quashed and set aside.

                                     5                        wp6595-2004


  (iii)       Respondent No.1 shall reconsider the proposal 

for approval to the appointment of the

petitioner on its own merits expeditiously

and in any case within three months from

today.

(iv) Respondent No.1 shall not reject the proposal

for approval to the appointment of the

petitioner on the ground on which it was

rejected vide the impugned communication.

(v) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

  (vi)        No costs.




     [SANGITRAO S. PATIL]                     [T.V. NALAWADE]
             JUDGE                                JUDGE


npj/wp6595-2004