JUDGMENT :

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner, who is rendered a widow at a young age, has rushed to this Court by putting forth prayer clause ‘C’.

“C. By appropriate writ order or direction the impugned order dated 18-12-2017 passed by the Respondent No. 02 thereby refusing to accord the approval to the petitioner for the appointment on the post of Peon on compassionate ground may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

3. In the second petition, the petitioner, who is the son of a deceased employee, has also approached this Court by putting forth prayer clauses ‘B, C and D’.

“B. By issue of Writ of mandamus or Order or direction in the like nature, the impugned order dated 10-12-2019 passed by the Respondent No. 2 Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad Nanded whereby rejecting the approval of the Petitioner, may kindly be quashed and set-aside.”

“C. By issue of Writ of mandamus or Order or direction in the like nature, the Respondent No. 2 Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad Nanded may kindly be directed to grant approval to the post of peon to the Petitioner with further directions to release his arrears and salary forthwith.”

“D. To hold and declare that, the appointment of petitioner on the post of peon on compassionate ground is legal and valid one.”

4. In Writ Petition No. 163 of 2020, since the Education Officer has passed yet another order dated 9-8-2021 refusing to accord approval to the compassionate appointment of the petitioner, we grant leave to the petitioner to amend the petition and add prayer clause ‘B(1)’ to assail the said order. Amendment be carried out forthwith. Consequentially, prayer clause ‘B(1)’ reads as under :

“B(1) By issue of Writ of Mandamus or order or direction in the like nature, the impugned order dated 9-8-2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 - Education Officer (Secondary) may kindly be quash and set aside.”

5. We have extensively heard the learned advocates for the respective sides. Time and again, we have dealt with cases in which compassionate appointment have been made and approval is denied or the appointment itself is refused on the grounds that, (a) There is a ban on fresh recruitment or filling up vacant posts, (b) Status-quo is ordered by the Government, or (c) Compassionate appointment cannot be made since it has to be verified whether the post is available.

6. Time and again and without an exception, this Court has ruled that appointment of a candidate on compassionate grounds would not be affected by (a) a ban on recruitment or (b) staffing pattern having been undertaken by the Government. Not a single order passed by this Court is placed before us which would indicate that this Court has concluded that the moment a permanent employee dies in harness, the permanent post occupied by him will either extinguish or stand abolished or that it can be treated as being a vacancy to be affected by a ban on recruitment.

7. These are two peculiar cases before us and in the above mentioned backdrop of litigation, we are constrained to first discuss the law laid down by this Court before we proceed to deal with the submissions of the State Government and its various Government Resolutions.

8. We are referring to the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ;

(a) Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138,

(b) Local Administration Department and another vs. M. Selvanayagam Alias Kumaravelu, (2011) 13 SCC 42,

(c) Canara Bank and another vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, AIR 2015 SC 2411.

(d) Balbir Kaur and another vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, AIR 2000 SC 1596.

(e) Yogesh Nagraoji Ugale vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019 STPL 9892 SC.

(f) Shattuppa L. Patil vs. Central Bank of India, Writ Petition No. 1549 of 2006, judgment dated 23-10-2007 (High Court of Karnataka).

(g) Smt. Meena Dhaigude vs. Maha Pravandhak, State Bank of India, W.P