ADARSH SHIKSHAN MANDALI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned AGP for the Respondent-State. Rule. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith by consent.

(2.) The subject matter of this petition concerns communications dated 21 October 2020 and 26 October 2020 issued by Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune, directing Petitioner No.2 to submit a proposal for appointment of Respondent No. 5 as a Class-III Employee on compassionate grounds and threatening appointment of an administrator, if such appointment is not made by the Petitioners. The facts of the matter, as reflected in the petition and documents accompanying it, indicate that a communication was already made in December 2010 by Petitioner No. 1, who runs a High School, to Respondent No. 3 to approve appointment of Respondent no. 5 on compassionate grounds in place of his late father, who was a Class-IV employee of the school run by the Petitioners. There was no response from the Education Officer to this communication. It appears that Respondent No. 3-Education Officer wrote to Petitioner No.1 on 31 August 2020, informing the latter that there was no framework for staffing pattern of Class-IV employees and that Respondent No. 5 could not be appointed as a Class-IV employee. Immediately after this communication, the Education Officer made the impugned communication of 21 October 2020, indicating that a hearing was held before Deputy Lokayukta on 31 August 2020 and after hearing the matter, the latter was pleased to direct appointment of Respondent no. 5 as a Class-III employee. This communication was followed by another communication, also impugned in the present petition, of 26 October 2020, directing the Petitioner to act on the earlier communication of 21 October 2020 within eight days and threatening appointment of an administrator in case the directions were not complied with.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the father of Respondent No.5, who was working with Petitioner No.2-school, was a Class-IV employee (working as a Peon). Learned Counsel submits that in accordance with the applicable GR, there is a case for appointment of Respondent No. 5 on compassionate grounds as a Class-IV employee. Learned Counsel submits that according to the staffing pattern of Class-IV employees in Petitioner No.2's schools, there are at present four vacant posts of Class-IV employees in the schools and the Petitioners are agreeable to appoint Respondent no. 5 in one of these posts.