The judgment establishes the principle that denial of compassionate appointment based on gender bias and privileges under Article 30 violates constitutional rights, emphasizing the need for equality of opportunity in public employment.

JUDGMENT :

NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The prayer made in this petition is for direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in Class-IV category on the post of Peon.

3. The facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as under:

(i) The father of the petitioner, viz. Dhondiram, was appointed on 1-9-1986 in Class-IV category on the post of Peon in the respondent No. 4-School, which is managed by the respondent No. 3-Society. Said Dhondiram expired on 10-8-2012. After the appointment of Dhondiram, his services were duly approved by the respondent No. 2-Education Officer and the payments were drawn by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in favour of Dhondiram from the public exchequer. The respondent No. 3 claims that the respondent No. 4 is a Minority Institution and enjoys all privileges under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) After the death of Dhondiram, the petitioner moved to the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 from 8-1-2013 onwards seeking grant of compassionate appointment.

(iii) In spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner, since the prayer for grant of compassionate appointment was not allowed, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to issue an order of appointment in Class-IV category on compassion.

4. The submissions of Shri Kadu, learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner’s father was in the employment of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for a period from 1-9-1986 till his death, i.e. 10-8-2012. It is claimed that the appointment of the father of the petitioner was duly approved by Education Department and his salary was drawn from the public exchequer.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 8-1-2013, 6-1-2014, 8-12-2015 and 21-4-2016, the petitioner had approached the respondent-Management so also the Head Mistress seeking grant of appointment as a Peon in Class-IV category on compassionate basis. Such request of the petitioner was not adhered to.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a similarly placed person, like that of the petitioner, was granted compassionate appointment by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 1-10-2016. As such, it is clear that the conduct of the respondents is of victimizing the petitioner by acting in a biased and arbitrary manner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents are acting in discriminatory manner.

7. While countering the aforesaid submissions, Shri Quazi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, submits that the School managed by the respondent No. 3, i.e. the respondent No. 4, is a Girls’ School. It has adopted a policy not to appoint a male person as a Peon. According to him, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 being a Minority Institution, in view of the privileges conferred on such Institution under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Government Authorities or that of the petitioner cannot compel them to grant compassionate appointment. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that the petitioner cannot be granted compassionate appointment because his mother is getting family pension. It is also urged that in view of mandate provided under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, particularly autonomy to administer, this Court cannot judicially review its actions.

8. So as to substantiate the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has drawn support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Canossa Society, Mumbai vs. Commissioner, Social Welfare, Pune, 2014 (4) ABR 521, particularly Paragraphs 14, 21 and 22.

9. As against above, the respondent No. 2-Education Officer has filed his reply. He has stated in categorical terms that the petitioner’s claim for grant of compassionate appo