(1) WP 8444.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8444 OF 2011 Sandeep S/o Havgirao Birajdar Age : 33 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad At present C/o Karanje Nivas, Bidar Railway Gate, Bidar-Udgir Road, Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist.: Latur PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through : Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Circle (C.P.), Yantriki Bhavan, Nanded Tq. Dist. Nanded 431 605 3. Executive Engineer, Vioshnupuri Pump House Division, Nanded, Tq. Dist. Nanded 431 605 4. Deputy Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Osmanabad, Tq. Dist. Osmanabad RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.D. Dhongade, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 02ND DECEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Petition is heard finally, by consent of the parties. (2) WP 8444.2011 2. By the present Petition, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Bench Aurangabad passed on 29.08.2011 in Original Application no. 375 of 2011. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum- Typist on compassionate appointment upon death of his father in harness with effect from 02.08.2008. He was terminated from service vide order dated 30.10.2010 on the ground that he failed to pass Marathi typing examination and English typing examination within a period of two years from the date of his joining the services on 02.08.2008. He had challenged the said order before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. As the challenge has failed, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 4. The Government resolution dated 23.08.1996 provided that a person can be appointed on compassionate grounds as a Clerk-cum-Typist, provided he produces the certificate of passing of typing examination within two years, and further provided (3) WP 8444.2011 that the period would not be extendable in any case. The said condition was also incorporated in the appointment order of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has appeared for the examination in the month of May, 2010. The petitioner has submitted that the examinations are being held though twice in a year, the results are declared late and, therefore, the petitioner could not produce the certificate within the limitation prescribed by the resolution. The learned Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal observed that since the petitioner was aware on 02.08.2008 i.e. on the date of joining the services itself that he will have to achieve the proficiency in typing before the deadline of two years. It was therefore declared that for typing examination in May 2010 and declaration of results of the same in September, 2010 i.e. after the expiry of two years deadline, which ended on 02.08.2010 would not entitle the petitioner to continue in the service. 6. Before us the petitioner has also relied in the Government resolution dated 30.09.2011 which (4) WP 8444.2011 inter-alia provided that the employees who had joined the services under the amended recruitment rules of the year 2008 after 30.07.2008, would be given concession of another one year for passing of the requisite typing examinations. 7. Taking into consideration all the above facts, it is clear that though the petitioner has appeared for the examination in the month of May, 2010 and the results were declared in September, 2010, before which the deadline of two years had arisen. Further, considering the Government resolution dated 30.09.2011, it is clear that the petitioner is victim of fortuitous circumstances. Further, finding that he was appointed on compassionate grounds, we are of the view that the Petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be reinstated in service. 8. Rule is therefore made absolute in the following terms:- I) The order of termination dated 30.10.2010 is quashed and set aside. (5) WP 8444.2011 II) The petitioner is directed to be reinstated with continuity of service. III) Though it is directed that the petitioner would be entitled for continuity in service with all service benefits, it is further directed that he will not be entitled for back wages, for the period during which, he was out of employment. Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/