VASANT JINNAPPA CHOUGULE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Bandiwadekar, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties petition has been finally heard.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged the appointment of respondent no. 5 as Shikshan Sevak (Secondary) made by the Respondent no.3 for its school viz. the respondent no.4 w.e.f. 3/8/2006, on compassionate ground. Shri Hindurao Mahadeo Salunke, father of the respondent no.5 was an Assistant Teacher with the respondent no.4 - school and he died on 10/7/2000. Smt. Mangala Hindurao Salunke, mother of the respondent no.5 was also working as an Assistant Teacher with the very same school. The respondent no.5 did not apply for appointment on compassionate ground as a Shikshan Sevak or in any other post till his mother retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 31/5/2005. It is alleged that for the first time he submitted an application for appointment as a Shikshan Sevak on compassionate ground to respondent no.3 on 1/6/2005 and during that period he was already working as an Assistant Teacher at Nav Krishna Valley School run by Suraj Foundation from 18/1/2003 to 30/4/2006. On 2/8/2006 he was issued an appointment order as Shikshan Sevak and for a period of three years i.e. from 3/8/2006 to 2/8/2009 and the appointment order was signed by his mother in her capacity as a trustee of the respondent no.3 - society. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no.5 could not have been considered for being appointed on compassionate ground as his mother was already working as Assistant Teacher when his father died and he himself was working with some other school i.e. Nav Krishna Valley School. It is further alleged that the appointment of respondent no.5 has been made by his mother and by not following any due process as prescribed under the Rules. The appointment on compassionate ground is illegal and void ab initio and is, therefore, required to be quashed and set aside, urged Mr.Bandiwadekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) Affidavit in reply has been filed by the management as well as respondent no.5. The management has filed additional affidavit so as to oppose the petition. As per the management an advertisement was released in the local newspapers calling for application for the post of Shikshan Sevaks in different subjects on 19 th July 2006. Along with others the respondent no.5 also submitted his application and the selection committee interviewed all the candidates who had applied for the post of Shikshan Sevak and as a result of the said selection process the respondent no.5 was selected and was issued the appointment order dated 2/8/2006. The said appointment has been approved by the Education Officer on 16/3/2007 and by now he has already been confirmed as an Assistant Teacher and the appointment made on compassionate ground does not suffer from any illegalities and, therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed, as per the management. Shri Bhaskar Babar, Deputy Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli has filed affidavit in reply and supported the management as well respondent no.5. It is stated that as on 1/6/2005 none from the family of the respondent no.5 was in employment with the respondent no.3 - society and as per the GR dated 26 th October 1994 the appointment of respondent no.5 made on compassionate ground is legal and justified. It has been further stated that respondent no.5 might have been appointed as a part time teacher with Nav Krishna Valley school on an honorarium of Rs.2000/- per month and the said employment would not come in his way for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground i.e. on account of his father s demise, while in service. It has been pointed out that as per the GR dated 26 th October 1994 the application for appointment on compassionate ground was required to be made within five years from the date of death of the concerned employee i.e. Shri Hindurao Salunke and respondent no. 5 made an application within the said prescribed time limit. His mother had retired on 31 st May 2005 and, therefore, as on 1/6/2005 when he submitted the application for appointment on compassionate ground no other member of his family was employed and the appointment made with effect from 9/8/2006 is valid, legal and justified.