Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1742
IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
VIBHA KANKANWADI, HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
Ganesh Navnath Kendre - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10699 of 2024
Decided On : 17-10-2025
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Compassionate Appointments
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Government Resolutions - Compassionate appointment policy aims to relieve family hardships after the death of an employee; procedural lapses do not invalidate legitimate claims. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, whose father was a clerk and passed away while in service, sought a compassionate appointment but was offered a lesser role. The management purportedly based rejection on technical reasons and prior monetary benefits received by the family.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the rejection was arbitrary given the existence of vacant clerk positions and supported by earlier directives from the Education Officer.
Issues: Whether the management's rejection was lawful and consistent with compassionate appointment policy, especially given the petitioner’s qualifications and the existing vacancies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that refusal based on irrelevant technical grounds violates the intent of the compassionate appointment policy, which aims to alleviate family hardship.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; management directed to appoint the petitioner to the position of clerk within two weeks.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Mahesh V. Ghatge, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP, Mr. Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate grounds. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding eligibility and reasons for denial. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis on the validity of the petitioner's claim. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. determining criteria for compassionate appointment. (Para 10) |
| 5. final ruling and instruction to appoint petitioner. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
[ PER HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.]
1. The petitioner Ganesh Navnath Kendre has approached this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 3, the management of the educational institution run by its society to appoint the petitioner on the post of clerk on compassionate grounds as per the State Government policy and also to forward the necessary proposal to respondent No. 2 that is the Education Officer (Secondary) for approval. The petitioner's father was serving as a clerk in the school run by respondent No. 4, which is managed by respondent No. 3 - Society and he expired on 04.04.2021 while in service.
2. The petitioner who has passed the higher secondary certificate examination and holds valid certificates in Marathi and English typing as well as MS-CIT qualification submitted his application on 07.06.2021, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application was duly submitted to the society as well as to the Education Officer. However, the management by its order dated 10.03.2025, rejected the petitioner's request for appointment as clerk and instead offered him a post of peon. The petitioner accordingly amended the present petition to challenge the said order as well.
3. The petitioner contains that the action of respondent No. 3 is arbitrary and contrary to the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017, issued by the General Administration Department, which governs compassionate appointments. It is submitted that there are two sanctioned vacancies for the post of clerk available in the schools run by respondent No. 3 - Society and that the Education Officer has also issued directions to consider and appoint the petitioner on the said post.
4. It is further submitted that the management has rejected the petitioner's claim on untenable grounds such as alleged deficiencies in the application, pendency of a past criminal case in which the petitioner was acquitted and had been a juvenile at the time, and on the premise that the family had received monetary benefits. The petitioner’s counsel has relied upon the decisions of this Court in Prakash Vaijnathrao Borade Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others; Writ Petition No. 7388 of 2008 and Rahul Fulaji Bhotkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, passed in Writ Petition No. 13430 of 2023. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhawani Prasad Shankar Vs. Union of India; (2011) 4 SCC 209, to submit that the compassionate appointments cannot be denied on hyper technical grounds such as minor delay or lack of format and that the purpose of the scheme is to provide immediate successor to the family of a deceased employee.
5. On the other hand, the learned advocate for respondent No. 3 and 4 opposed the petition contending that the petitioner's application was filed beyond the period of one year prescribed under the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017. He further argued that it was not in the prescribed format and the family had already received sufficient monetary benefits such as gratuity and pension.
6. It was further argued that the 20% ceiling for the compassionate appointments under the Government Resolution dated 15.02.2018 has already been exhausted since three non-teaching staff members have been appointed on compassionate grounds out of the 11 sanctioned posts. It was submitted that the petitioner had also been offered the post of peon, in view of the Clause 16 of the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017, which allows appointment to a lower post, when the higher p
