Despite Government Resolution, Bombay HC Allows Secondary School Compassionate Appointment of A Peon
Bombay High Court in Sunil Gundu Desai vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (WP no. 4673 of 2019) held that Government Resolution dated 12th February 2015 imposing ban on fresh recruitment does not apply to compassionate appointments and directed the Education Officer (Secondary), respondent no.2 to grant approval for the appointment of the petitioner on a compassionate basis to the post of a peon at Sahyadri Vidyalaya School, respondent no.4 w.e.f. 1st October 2014, with all consequential benefits. Further, the court directed that such approval has to be granted within four weeks from the date of the order.
The Division Bench of Justice R D Dhanuka and Justice R I Chagla held:
“…the said Government Resolution imposing ban on fresh recruitment will not apply to the appointments made on compassionate basis. The very object in all such appointments is to enable the State Government to carry forward its earlier policy despite the overall ban on recruitment and appointment.”
The petitioner’s father had been working at Sahyadri Vidyalaya School (respondent no.4) until his death on 30th July 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner requested Khedut Shikshan Mandal (respondent no.3) and respondent no.4 to appoint him as a peon on a compassionate basis. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed to the post of peon w.e.f. 1st October 2014. However, when a proposal was sent for approval of the said appointment, respondent no.2, Education Officer (Secondary) refused to give the approval by order dated 31st March 2018, on the ground that such appointments have been banned under Government Resolution dated 12th February 2015.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 31st March 2018 issued by respondent no.2.
The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Suraj Uttam Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., in which an earlier judgment was referred to wherein it was held that an appointment made on a compassionate basis would not be superseded by a subsequent Government Resolution dated 2nd May 2012 imposing a ban on recruitment and those compassionate appointments are outside the scope of such general ban on recruitment. The court accepted the petitioner’s plea and held:
“It is made clear from the said decision that appointment on compassionate basis were kept outside of the purview of the general ban imposed on recruitment by Government Resolution dated 2nd May 2012. This would apply also to the subsequent Government Resolution dated 12th February 2015 which is the sole basis of the impugned order in the present case.”
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court held that Government Resolution 12th February 2015 imposing ban on fresh recruitment does not apply to compassionate appointments, set aside the impugned order dated 31st March 2018 refusing to grant approval for the petitioner’s appointment and directed respondent no. 2 to “to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis on the post of peon in the said school w.e.f. 1st October 2014 with all consequential benefits within a period of four weeks from the date of this order”.