Policies for compassionate appointments must consider the realities faced by minors, and arbitrary time limits can be read down to ensure fairness.

JUDGMENT :

MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

1. Heard. Rule. It is made returnable forthwith. Mr. Tambe waives service for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Ingole, learned AGP waives service for respondent no. 3.

2. The petitioner is seeking appointment with respondent no. 1 on compassionate ground on account of demise of his father on31-08-2004 while being in the employment of respondent no. 1 - Zilla Parishad as a primary school teacher in Zilla Parishad primary school, Paithan. His date of birth is 15-09-1995. After attaining majority, he submitted an application under the extant scheme seeking appointment on compassionate ground on 10-02-2014. It was forwarded by the headmaster to respondent no. 2 - Block Education Officer on the very day. In spite of being eligible, the proposal was rejected by respondent no. 1, on the ground that it was not submitted within the stipulated period of one year, as is expected under the scheme pronounced by government resolution dated 11-12-1996. It was ignored that the application was filed within a year of his reaching the age of majority. Hence, this petition challenges the impugned communication / order dated 14-09-2016, refusing appointment on compassionate ground and seeking a direction to include the name in the wait list in accordance with the original proposal.

3. By way of amendment dated 12-12-2019, the petitioner further averred that the government resolution dated 22-08-2005 to the extent of paragraph no. 2(3), is unconstitutional on the ground that it is arbitrary and contrary to the aims and objects of the scheme of appointment on compassionate ground by rest of the heirs which are still minors.

4. Petition is contested by respondent no. 1 by filing affidavit in reply. It is inter alia averred that petitioner’s elder brother - Sachin reached majority on 22-07-2010, having been born on 22-07-1992. As per government resolution dated 22-08-2005, the period of filing application for compassionate appointment was reduced from 5 years to 1 year and Sachin having not applied within one year of reaching majority, and the petitioner’s application being late by 3 years 11 months and 26 days, of Sachin reaching the majority, was not within the time available under the scheme to seek appointment on compassionate ground. It is also contended that as per the government resolution dated 11-09-1996, it was specifically laid down that the application should be filed within a year of one of the heirs of the deceased employee reaching majority. The petitioner and his family could have intimated the office of respondent no. 1 within one year of Sachin reaching majority that it was the petitioner who was interested in applying on the ground of compassionate appointment.There was no illegality in rejecting the petitioner’s application.

5. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder and inter alia reference is made to the government resolution dated 21-09-2017 making it permissible for a minor of the deceased to make an application within one year of his attaining the age of 18 years. The petitioner's mother had pre-deceased his father in the year 2003. He was barely 9 yeas of age and his brother Sachin was 13 years of age on the date of death of the father on 31-08-2004. Sachin had filed affidavit on 06-02-2014, giving up his claim and had proposed the petitioner to be appointed. It was intimated to respondent no. 1 and, thereafter, no immediate decision was taken and abruptly, the order was passed refusing the appointment to the petitioner.

6. We have heard both the sides and perused the record.

7. Learned advocates made submissions in consonance with their stand in the respective pleadings.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner’s father was in the employment of the Zilla Parishad as a primary teacher and died in harness on 31-08-2004. The averment in the rejoinder about his mother having predeceased the father in the year 2003, has not been disputed. There is also no dispute about the fact that the date of b