1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 819 OF 2010 Jyoti W/o Dhanraj Dhangar, Age : 32 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Chahardi, Tq. Chopda, District Jalgaon. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 3. The Chairman, Sanjay Education Society Navalnagar, Tq. & Dist. Dhule. 4. The Head Master, Rukhmini Madhyamik Kanya Vidyalaya Chahardi, Tq. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. .. Respondents Shri Prakashsing B. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2 CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 05TH JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P. V. HARDAS, J] : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside the communication of the respondents dated 05.12.2009 declining to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on account of the embargo placed by the Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005. 3. Undisputedly, the petitioner came to be appointed as a peon some time in the year 2007 on account of the demise of her husband. The appointment of the petitioner was obviously in tune with the Government policy of giving appointment on compassionate basis. In the year 2009 the proposal was mooted by the management seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner which came to be turned down by the respondents, on 3 account of the Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005. 4. Mr. Tambe, learned Assistant Government Pleader has invited our attention to the paragraph 4 of the Government Resolution which mandates that in the event any of the sanctioned posts fall vacant, the prior permission of the Government should be obtained before filling the said post. Obviously this rider would apply to the cases where the posts fall vacant and are advertised by the management and are filled in from the candidates from the open market. Government Resolution further mandates that it is necessary to absorb the teachers who have been rendered surplus and absorption would take precedence over the filling the post by inviting applications from the candidates. In the present case the rigour of the Government Resolution according to us would not apply as the appointment of the petitioner was on compassionate ground. The resolution therefore would be applicable to the cases where the posts fall vacant and the management fills in the posts without seeking the prior approval of the Government by inviting applications. Obviously it is necessary in order to ensure that those teachers who have been rendered surplus are absorbed and thereafter the applications from the candidates from open market can be invited. 4 5. In the present case, the impugned order does not state that certain teachers were waiting their absorption and on account of appointment of the petitioner, the absorption of these teachers has been held up. There is nothing to indicate that the teachers who have been appointed in other schools had been rendered surplus and, therefore, it was essential to absorb them first before granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner. 6. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us the action of the respondents in denying approval to the appointment of the petitioner is erroneous and unjustified. The impugned order is accordingly quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner from the date of the proposal with no order as to costs. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above said terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10