Allowed

Dadabhau Anantrao Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC8 Aug 2018WP/294/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the relevant authority to reconsider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on its own merits. Holding that surplus teacher norms and M.E.P.S. Act compliance do not apply to cases admitted as compassionate appointments, the Court quashed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed; the Educational Officer was directed to decide the proposal for the petitioner's appointment on its own merits within four months.

Dadabhau Anantrao Kharat Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

959 WRIT PETITION NO. 294 OF 2018

¶3

DADABHAU ANANTRAO KHARAT VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶4

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Tope Sambhaji S. AGP for Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr. S.B.Yawalkar Advocate for Respondents 3 and 4 : Mr. R.J.Nirmal

¶5

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND SUNIL K.KOTWAL, JJ.

¶6

DATE : AUGUST 8, 2018

¶7

O R D E R :

¶8

Mr. Tope, learned counsel submits that the

¶9

petitioner was appointed as Shikshan Sevak on

¶10

compassionate ground. The appointment on compassionate

¶11

ground is permissible as per the Government Resolution,
dated 31.12.2002 issued by the School Department.
Subsequent Government Resolutions issued by the General
Administration Department also confirms the said fact.
Learned counsel submits that aspect of surplus teacher

¶12

and adherence to the recruitment process would not

¶13

2 wp294.18

¶14

apply to the appointment on compassionate ground.

¶15

2.Learned counsel relies on the judgment of

¶16

this Court in the case of Syed Asad Syed Yusuf vs
State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2016 (6)
Bom.C.R 544.

¶17

3.Learned AGP submits that there were 16

¶18

surplus teachers yet to be absorbed. It is also not

¶19

clear that the appointment of the petitioner is in 10
per cent posts reserved for compassionate ground.
According to the learned counsel, procedure is not
followed.

¶20

4.Respondents in their affidavit have admitted

¶21

that the petitioner is appointed as Shikshan Sevak on
compassionate ground.

¶22

5.In view of that, adherence to Section 5 of
the M.E.P.S. Act so also, aspect of surplus teachers

¶23

3 wp294.18

¶24

in view of judgment of this Court in the case of Syed
Asad (supra) would not be relevant.

¶25

6.As far as other aspect of 10 per cent
reservation meant for compassionate appointment is
concerned, the same is not a ground in the order
rejecting the approval. It is for the authority to
consider the same.

¶26

7.In view of above, the impugned order is

¶27

quashed and set aside. The Education Officer shall
decide the proposal seeking approval to the
appointment of the petitioner afresh, on its own
merits, preferably within four months and shall not
reject it on the ground on which impugned order is
passed.

¶28

SUNIL K.KOTWAL, J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶29

dbm

Dadabhau Anantrao Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dadabhau Anantrao Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharad Vitthal Bhange Vs Zilla Parishad Aurangabad through Its Chief Executive Officer and Another

Shashikant Ramrao Patil and Others Vs the Secretary Tribal Social Welfare Department Mumbai and Another

Chandrakant Eknath Bansode and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gajanan Nagorao Rajure Vs the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded and Others

Jayashree Jagannath Kulkarni Vs Aurangabad Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal Commissioner and Others

Ramesh Maroti Adhagale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others