Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nitin Ramesh Khedekar, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging the orders dated 31.12.2018 and 22.05.2019 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri (respondent No.3). The impugned orders refused approval to the petitioner's appointment on compassionate grounds in Navbharat High School & Junior College (respondent No.5). The sole reason cited by the Education Officer for refusal was that the staffing pattern in respect of privately aided, partly aided, secondary and higher secondary schools had not been finalized by the Government, and therefore appointments/approval of appointments on compassionate grounds should not be finalized. The petitioner, being aggrieved, approached the High Court. The Court heard Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the petitioner and Mr. Y.D. Patil, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None appeared for respondent Nos.4 and 5 despite service. The Court observed that the reason given by the Education Officer was unsustainable because the policy regarding staffing pattern is a separate issue and cannot be a ground to deny compassionate appointment. The Court noted that the petitioner's appointment was made by the management and the only requirement was approval from the Education Officer. The Court held that the Education Officer must consider the approval independently without reference to the pending staffing pattern policy. Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the Education Officer to pass fresh orders within four weeks from the date of the judgment, considering the petitioner's appointment on compassionate grounds. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Approval by Education Officer - Refusal on Ground of Pending Staffing Pattern Finalization - The Education Officer refused approval to the petitioner's compassionate appointment solely because the Government had not finalized the staffing pattern for aided schools. The High Court held that such refusal is unsustainable as the policy regarding staffing pattern cannot be a ground to deny compassionate appointment which is a separate scheme. The Court directed the Education Officer to reconsider the approval without reference to the pending staffing pattern policy. (Paras 3-5) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - Challenge to Administrative Orders - The petitioner challenged the orders dated 31.12.2018 and 22.05.2019 passed by the Education Officer refusing approval. The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the impugned orders and directed the Education Officer to pass fresh orders within four weeks, considering the petitioner's appointment on compassionate grounds independently of the staffing pattern issue. (Paras 3, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Education Officer can refuse approval to a compassionate appointment on the ground that the staffing pattern for schools is yet to be finalized by the Government.
Final Decision
The impugned orders dated 31.12.2018 and 22.05.2019 are quashed and set aside. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri is directed to pass fresh orders within four weeks from the date of the judgment, considering the petitioner's appointment on compassionate grounds independently and without reference to the pending staffing pattern policy. The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Education Officer's approval
- Staffing pattern
- Government policy pending finalization
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
