Bombay High Court
Shaikh Ameruddin Azimuddin vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 5 October, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
wp12047.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12047 OF 2017
Shaikh Ameruddin Azimuddin
age 26 years, occ. clerk
r/o Urdu Girls High school
Hlua-E-Dawanik,
Tq. Vaijapur,
Dist. Aurangabad Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad
Dist. Aurangabad.
3. Halqa-E-Dawanaik,
Education Society,
Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad
Through its Secretary.
4. Head Master
Urdu Girls High School,
Halqa-E-Dawanaik,
Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad Respondents
Mr. Zaidi Ali Zeeshan M, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.B. Joshi, A.G.P. for respondents 1 and 2.
Mr. P.M. Nagargoje, advocate for respondents 3 and 4.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
DATE : 5th OCTOBER, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )
{2}
wp12047.17.odt
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in view
of change in the policy adopted by Respondent-State, in respect of
compassionate appointments, the proposal for according approval
to the appointment of petitioner can be accorded.
3. Petitioner has been appointed as a Clerk in
Respondent No.3-Institution on compassionate ground. The
proposal for according approval to the appointment of petitioner
has been turned down by Respondent No.2 for the reason that at
the relevant time, there was ban for making fresh appointments
and that the Institution has not secured prior permission for
making appointment of the petitioner. One of the reasons, for
turning down the proposal for according approval to the
appointment of petitioner, is that Respondent-Institution has failed
to absorb surplus employees. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
states that Respondent No.3-Institution is a minority Institution
and the policy of accommodation of surplus employees is not
applicable to the minority institutions and there is no obligation on
the minority institutions to absorb surplus teachers. It is
contended that in view of subsequent policy adopted by
Respondent-State, under the Government Resolution, which
requires prior approval of the education authorities before making
appointments, is not applicable for compassionate appointments.
4. In view of change in policy and in view of the fact that
petitioner is a minority institution and has no obligation to
{3}
wp12047.17.odt
accommodate surplus employees, order passed by the
Respondent-Education Officer, refusing to accord approval to the
appointment of petitioner, deserves to be quashed and set aside;
and same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Respondent-
Institution shall tender fresh proposal seeking approval to the
appointment of petitioner and if the Institution tenders such
proposal within a period of six weeks from today, Respondent No.2-
Education Officer shall consider the proposal and pass appropriate
orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of such proposal.
5. Rule is made absolute to the extent as specified above.
No costs.
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
