Rightfully deserved positions can often not reach the deserving person due to administrative chaos or legislative loopholes, however that right will be upheld by the justice system. This was held in the judgment passed by a two bench judge comprising HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. D. DHANUKA AND JUSTICE R.I.CHAGLA, in the matter of Sunil Gundu Desai V. The State of Maharashtra & Ors, dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed impugned the order that refused grant approval on his request to be appointed on the post of peon on compassionate basis.
The petitioner seeked a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31st March 2018 passed by the respondent refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of a peon in the Sahyadri Vidyalaya School. The father of the petitioner who was working in the said school died on 30th July 2014. The petitioner had approached the respondents on 26th August 2014 requesting that he should be appointed on the post of peon on compassionate basis. No decision had been taken for approval. The management and the said school again submitted the proposal for approval to the appointment of the petitioner. The respondent returned the said proposal for approval of the petitioner’s appointment by placing reliance on the Government Resolution dated 12th February 2015.
Counsel for the petitioner invited attention to the impugned order and submitted that the sole basis for not approving the appointment of the petitioner on the post of peon in the said school is on the basis of Government Resolution dated 12th February 2015 by which such appointments were banned. He submits that the said Government Resolution dated 12th February 2015 applies with prospective effect. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on judgment of Suraj Uttam Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. It has thus been held that the prior decision dated 11th December, 2018 squarely applies to the facts of the case granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of a Shikshan Sevak since the date of his appointment with all consequential benefits. Such appointments were kept outside the purview of the general ban imposed on recruitment. He accordingly submitted that the said decision applies to the facts of this case.
After hearing both the parties The hon’ble Bombay High court allowed the petition and directed to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis on the post of peon in the said school with all consequential benefits within a period of four weeks from the date of this order as the said Government Resolution imposing ban on fresh recruitment will not apply to the appointments made on compassionate basis. The very object in all such appointments is to enable the State Government to carry forward its earlier policy despite the overall ban on recruitment and appointment.
