DINESH SUDAM PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Respondent-State has filed its Reply Affidavit. Heard by consent of both the parties. Rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) The Petitioners assail order dtd. 20/12/2020 passed by the 2nd Respondent, Education Officer of the 1st Respondent-State. The impugned order pertains to a refusal by the Respondents to grant approval for continuity of service of the 1st Petitioner as Assistant Teacher. The 1st Petitioner is an employee of the 2nd Petitioner-Management.

(3.) The facts of the case reveal an unreasonable approach of the Respondents in refusing approval to the continuity of service of the 1st Petitioner despite him having successfully completed the mandated probationary period of three years as Shikshan Sevak (trained graduate teacher) in the school run by the Management. The 1st Petitioner's father was permanently employed in the school of the 2nd Petitioner as Peon. Upon his death, the 1st Petitioner was eligible to be appointed as trained under-graduate teacher and hence sought compassionate employment as such. There was no vacancy in the teaching cadre at the relevant time and hence, the 1st Petitioner accepted the post of junior clerk which was available in the School. He completed three years as Shikshan Sevak followed by continuing as Junior Clerk on a regular basis upon grant of approval by the Education Officer.