1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7388 OF 2008 Prakash s/o. Vaijnathrao Borade, Age 26 years, Occ, Nil, R/o. Deshpande Galli, Parali-Vaijnath, Dist. Beed. .. Petitioner/s Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Beed. 3] Saraswati Shikshan Sanstha, through its Secretary/President, Laxmanrao s/o. Shankarrao Deshmukh R/o. Nehru Chowk (Tai) Tq. Parli Vaijnath District Beed. 4] Shri Saraswati Vidyalaya, Subhash Chawk, Mondha, Parali-Vaijnath, Dist. Beed. Through its Head Master. 5] Shree Saraswati Vidyalaya, Manik Nagar /Vidya Nagar Parali-Vaijnath, Dist. Beed. Through its Head Master. .. Respondent/s. 2 --- Mr. G.V. Mohekar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : - 8th October, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to comply with the directions issued by the respondent No.2 dated 15th September, 2003. 3] The father of the petitioner who was working as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent No.4 School died while in service on 10th August, 2002. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground. Since the application was not considered by the management, he made representations to the respondent No.2 Education Officer. The respondent No.2 addressed a communication dated 15th September, 2003 to the Head Master of the respondent No.4 School, directing therein that the petitioner should be appointed on compassionate ground on a suitable post, taking into consideration his educational 3 qualification. Since the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not complied with the said directions, the petitioner has approached this court. 4] Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 vehemently opposed the petition. He further submits that there is no vacancy with the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to accommodate the petitioner. 5] Finding that vide communication dated 15/9/2003, the respondent No.2 had found the petitioner to be eligible and had accordingly issued directions to appoint him, we had directed the learned AGP to seek instructions as to whether any Class III or Class IV non-teaching post is available in the respondent No.4/5 School run by the respondent No.3. 6] Accordingly, an affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, wherein, it has been stated that one post of Peon and one post of Jr. Clerk is available in Saraswati Vidyalaya, Parli Vaijnath, we find that when the respondent No.2 who is the controlling authority of the respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 had found that the petitioner was entitled for appointment on compassionate ground and had issued the consequent directions, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5, to comply with the said directions. It is not in dispute that the respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 are receiving grant in aid from the Government. 7] When the Educational Institutes receiving grant in aid from the Government are issued any directions by the authorities of the Education 4 Department, it is their duty to comply with the said directions. We find that the action of the respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 in not obeying the directions issued by the respondent No.2 vide communication dated 15th September, 2003 is unsustainable in law. 8] In that view of the matter, we allow the petition in terms of prayer clause (C-1). It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has passed B.A. Second year and has also passed the M.S.C.I.T. Examination. The said qualification is requisite qualification for the post of a Junior Clerk. We , therefore, direct the respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner on the post of Junior Clerk in Saraswati Vidyalaya, Parli Vaijnath, within a period of 4 weeks from today. Needless to state that on petitioner's appointment, a proposal would be sent to the respondent No.2 immediately and in any case, within a period of 3 weeks from the date on which the petitioner joins the service. Needless to state that on receipt of the said proposal, the respondent No.2 shall grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, within a period of 4 weeks from the receipt thereof. 9] Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/- 5