Dipak Ravindra Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5320 Bom

                                       1                     WP / 10655 / 2022

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 10655 OF 2022

Dipak S/o Ravindra Patil,
Age : 32 years, Occu : Service as
Peon, R/o. House No. 919, Shital Society,
Navapur, VTC Navapur, Tal. Navapur,
Dist. Nandurbar                                                 .. Petitioner

       Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
   Through its Principal Secretary,
   Social Education Department,
   Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32

2] The Deputy Director of Education,
   Nashik Division, Nashik,
   Tal. & Dist. Nashik

3] The Education Officer (Secondary),
   Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar
   Tq & Dist. Nandurbar

4] The Superintendent,
   Pay and Provident Fund Unit,
   Nandurbar (Secondary),
   Zilla Parishad, Secondary Section,
   Nandurbar, Tal & Dist. Nandurbar

5] Navapur Taluka Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
   Navapur, Tq. Navapur, Dist. Nandurbar
   Through its President

6] Shri Shivaji High School and Junior College,
   Navapur, Tq. Navapur Dist. Nandurbar
   Through its Head Master                                   .. Respondents

                                      ...
                  Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for petitioner
             AGP for the respondent - State : Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar
                 Respondents no. 5 and 6 served - absent.
                                      ...

                                CORAM      : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                             S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.

                                DATE       : 8 JUNE 2023




 ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2023                     ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 14:14:39 :::
                                      2                     WP / 10655 / 2022

ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :

The petitioner is seeking approval to his appointment as a

Peon in the respondent no. 6 - school on compassionate ground.

2. We have heard both the sides.

3. By the impugned communication, the respondent no. 3 -

Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar has refused

to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment on the sole ground

that the recruitment was banned by the Government resolution dated

2 May 2012 and staffing pattern has been made applicable to the

private schools receiving part or full government grants as per the

Government resolution dated 11 December 2020 whereby

appointments of class-IV employees have been outsourced.

4. The issue is no more res integra and has been squarely

covered by catena of decisions of this Court, namely, i) Smt. Samita

Sameer Desai and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra through

Secretary and another (writ petition no. 7507 of 2016 - Principal

Seat) dated 11 December 2018, ii) Smt. Yogita W/o Shivsing Nikam

Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (writ petition no. 4219 of

2018 and connected matters) decided on 11 August 2021.

5. It is pertinent to note the following observations from

paragraph no. 28 from the judgment of Smt. Yogita Nikam (supra) :

3 WP / 10655 / 2022

"28. To say the least, we are shocked by the stand taken by the State Government, which is not only against logic and reason, but is in complete contradiction to the law crystallized by this Court in numerous judgments. It is unconscionable for the State to canvass such grounds virtually rendering the bereaved family to starvation. We find that the State has consistently ensured that not a single Government Resolution, pertaining to ban on recruitment, stay on filling in vacant posts and prohibition on appointments until the staffing pattern of the non teaching posts is formalized, would apply to appointments made on compassionate grounds. This Court has also consistently taken a view that compassionate appointment would be an exception to the mandatory rule of following specific selection procedure for recruitment on vacant posts or on newly created posts."

6. In view of such emphatic observations of this Court, both

the grounds on which the respondent no. 3 has refused to accord

approval to the petitioner's appointment would not be sustainable.

7. Writ petition is allowed.

8. The impugned order dated 14 December 2021 passed by

the respondent no. 3 - Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,

Nandurbar is quashed and set aside.

9. The matter is relegated to the respondent no. 3 for

decision afresh. He shall consider the above observations and pass a

fresh order as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three

months but shall not refuse to grant approval on the grounds

mentioned in the impugned order / communication.

     [ S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR ]                      [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
              JUDGE                                     JUDGE
arp/