Case Note & Summary
The case pertained to a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, refusing approval to the compassionate appointment of the petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak. The petitioner's father, an Assistant Teacher in a private school, passed away on 15 August 2008 while in service. After working without remuneration for a period, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis by the school management through a resolution dated 25 November 2013, for the period from 2 December 2013 to 1 December 2016. The proposal for approval was submitted to the Education Officer, but by the impugned order dated 11 July 2017, approval was refused solely on the ground that a Government Resolution dated 2 May 2012 had imposed a ban on recruitment. The petitioner contended that the said GR pertained to direct recruitment and did not apply to compassionate appointments, which were governed by a separate policy vide Government Resolution dated 31 December 2002. The State, through the Assistant Government Pleader, argued that the ban covered all appointments and the refusal was proper. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the very object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of a deceased employee to overcome financial distress and that such appointments are not fresh recruitments. The post held by the deceased father was permanent and sanctioned, and the compassionate appointment did not create a new post or involve a recruitment process that could be hit by the ban. On a plain reading, the GR dated 2 May 2012 did not supersede the earlier compassionate appointment policy. Relying on its own earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 7507/2016 decided on 11 December 2018, where it was held that compassionate appointments were kept out of the purview of the general ban, the court concluded that the refusal of approval was untenable. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed, and the Education Officer was directed to forthwith grant approval to the petitioner's appointment as Shikshan Sevak from 2 December 2013 with all consequential benefits. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Applicability of Recruitment Ban - Government Resolution dated 2nd May, 2012; Government Resolution dated 31st December, 2002 - The petitioner was appointed as Shikshan Sevak on compassionate basis following his father's death; the Education Officer refused approval citing a general ban on recruitment under GR dated 2.5.2012. The court held that compassionate appointments are not fresh recruitments and the ban does not apply; they are governed by the specific compassionate appointment policy (GR 31.12.2002). The impugned order was quashed and direction given to grant approval with all consequential benefits from the date of appointment - Held that refusal of approval on ground of ban is untenable (Paras 8-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Government Resolution dated 2nd May, 2012 imposing a ban on recruitment in Secondary Schools applies to appointments made on compassionate basis, thereby justifying refusal of approval to the petitioner's compassionate appointment as Shikshan Sevak.
Final Decision
Petition allowed. Impugned order dated 11 July 2017 quashed and set aside. Education Officer directed to forthwith grant approval to petitioner's appointment as Shikshan Sevak from 2 December 2013 with all consequential benefits. Rule made absolute, no costs.
Law Points
- compassionate appointment is distinct from direct recruitment
- compassionate appointments not subject to general recruitment ban
- Government Resolution imposing ban on recruitment does not supersede compassionate appointment policy
- compassionate appointments are governed by specific Government Resolutions on compassionate grounds
