Vikas Apparao Mundhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

916 WRIT PETITION NO.1088 OF 2016

¶3

VIKAS APPARAO MUNDHE

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Jadhavar Santosh S.
AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3: Mr. S.G. Sangle
Advocate for Respondent No. 2: Mr. S.N. Rodge
Advocate for Respondent No. 5: Mr. M.P. Tripathi
Advocate for Respondent No. 6 : Mr.Jadhav Hanumant P.

¶7

 CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
 ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶8

 DATED : 3rd DECEMBER, 2019.

¶9

ORAL ORDER:

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶11

learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned

¶12

counsel appearing for other respective respondents.

¶13

2.The limited issue is raised in the petition

¶14

by a basic prayer in prayer clause ‘B’. The
petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to
appoint him and his sister Suchita d/o Apparao Mundhe
(Suchita w/o Pandurang Bikkad) on compassionate
ground, in the School run by respondent No. 5 or any
other school, as per the Government policy. The policy

¶15

2 wp1088.16

¶16

of the State Government is reflected in the

¶17

Government Resolution dated 26th February, 2013 and a
copy of the same is placed on record as annexure “D”.
Notices were issued by order dated 28.01.2016 and in
response to the notice, a reply is filed on behalf of
respondent Nos. 5 and 6, through Mr. Vitthal
Chandrabhan Takpire, the Secretary of respondent No.
5 Society.

¶18

3.Certain facts are not disputed in the
affidavit-in-reply, namely the father of petitioner
Mr. Apparao Haridas Mundhe, was working as Assistant
Teacher in the School run by respondent No. 5, who
met with an accident on 31.5.2011 and succumbed to
the injuries. It is also admitted by respondent Nos.
5 and 6 that representations were made seeking
appointment on compassionate ground, either to the
petitioner or his sister.

¶19

4.The material facts which are necessary for
disposal of the petition are that though the
representations were submitted, but those were only
in the form of applications and were not supported by
the documents, such as, death certificate of the

¶20

3 wp1088.16

¶21

deceased father, consent letters of other family
members, heir-ship certificate etc.

¶22

5.It is then stated in the affidavit-in-reply
that as per the procedure provided, the Education
Officer is duty bound to maintain the list of the
applicants, seeking appointment on compassionate
ground and then to forward these applications for
consideration, as per the seniority of the applicants
to the Education Officer, (Primary), Zilla Parishad,
Osmanabad. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply
that currently it appears that not a single post is
vacant with a the School. Two posts are deducted by
order dated 1.10.2002 and only eight posts are
available. Then a positive statement is made in the
affidavit-in-reply and it states that only eight
posts are available and considering the situation,
the management is ready to forward the proposal, if
submitted, by the petitioner afresh by annexing all
necessary documents i.e. the death certificate,
consent letters of the family members and the heir

¶23

ship certificate showing no family member is in
government service. Then it is stated that if
representations along with necessary documents are

¶24

4

¶25

wp1088.16

¶26

submitted to the Management, the management is ready
to follow the procedure as per requirement of the
policy for compassionate appointment.

¶27

6. On the backdrop of this statement, the

¶28

learned counsel Mr. Jadhavar, appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner would submit
representations to the respondents along with
necessary documents and more particularly to
respondent No. 2 i.e. the Education Officer,
(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, respondent No.
3 the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla parishad,
Osmanabad and respondent Nos. 5 & 6 i.e. the
President and the Secretary respectively of Mahatma
Gautam Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kallam, Tq. Kallam,
Dist. Osmanabad, within two weeks from today.

¶29

7.In case such representations are submitted
to the respondents within stipulated period of two
weeks, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to forward the same to
respondent No. 2 the Education Officer, (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad within two weeks from the
receipt of the receipt of the representations. On
receipt of the proposal along with representations,

¶30

5 wp1088.16

¶31

respondent No. 2 the Education Officer, (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad to take appropriate
decision and pass order within eight weeks from the
date of receipt of the proposal and representations.
With this direction, the Writ Petition is disposed
of.

¶32

8.Authenticated copy of this order be provided
to the learned counsel of the petitioner, as well as
to the learned counsel representing respondent No. 2
the Education Officer, (Primary), Zilla Parishad,
Osmanabad.

¶33

( ANIL S. KILOR ) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶34

mahajansb/

Vikas Apparao Mundhe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Apparao Mundhe 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Uttamrao Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramchandra Sukharam Meher Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mahesh Suryakant Tapse Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gajanan Ramchandra Gedewad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Bhikaji Satpute Vs Swarupchand Hiralalji Lalwani and Another

Vasant Shrirangrao Jadhav and Others Vs Dr Vandana Krushna and Others