Bombay High Court Imposes 25K Costs On Girls School For Gender-Based Denial Of Compassionate Appointment To Deceased Employee's Son

“We are sensitive to the fact that the said respondent is running a School, mainly for the girls, however the said act of the respondent of managing the School for the girls by itself will not give it privileges to deny employment by adopting the gender-bias approach...the stand taken by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 (school and the society managing it) that they are not granting compassionate appointment to a male member, in our opinion, also can be said to be violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India”, the court observed.

A division bench of Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice Abhay J Mantri further held that a Minority Institution receiving aid from the state government cannot deny compassionate appointment to an applicant who is otherwise eligible as per the state government's scheme.

“Merely because the respondent No.3 is a Minority Institution, that by itself will not given it privileges to refuse the employment on compassionate ground, particularly when the petitioner is satisfying all the requisite criteria as per the scheme framed by the State Government, from whom the respondent No.3-Institution is receiving the grant-in-aid”, the court observed.

The petitioner's father served as a Peon in the Holy Cross Convent English High School managed by the Amravati Krucelien Society until his passing on August 10, 2012. Despite the petitioner's repeated requests since January 8, 2013, the authorities did not grant him a compassionate appointment. Thus, he approached the high court alleging bias and arbitrary behavior, citing the appointment of another similarly situated individual in October 2016.

Advocate PA Kadu for the petitioner highlighted the deceased father's approved appointment and salary drawn from public funds, emphasizing the petitioner's eligibility for compassionate appointment.

Advocate S Zia Quazi for the school and its management contended that the School has adopted a policy not to appoint a male person as a Peon as it is a girls school. He cited constitutional privileges under Article 30 for Minority Institutions, arguing that the government cannot compel the school to appoint the petitioner and the court lacked jurisdiction to review the school's actions.

The state supported the petitioner's claim, asserting that compassionate appointment wouldn't disrupt school administration or educational standards.

The court found the delay in considering the petitioner's claim unjust, especially considering that the petitioner's claim predates those of others who were granted appointments. The court ruled that such differential treatment did not withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution as there was no valid reason presented for prioritizing the appointments of others over the petitioner.

Further, the court observed that the school received a grant from the government, making it a public employment. Therefore, its gender bias approach is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution, the court held.

“It is not a case of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 that they have not granted employment to any male staff for the purpose of imparting education or on the administrative side. The approach of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in singling out the case of the petitioner speaks of the intention to deal with the case of the petitioner as per their convenience and that too in a biased and arbitrary manner”, the court observed.

Citing the judgment in TMA Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, the court emphasized that while Minority Institutions have certain privileges under Article 30 of the Constitution, they are still subject to regulations concerning employment practices.

Thus, the court imposed costs on the school and ordered it to issue an appointment order to the petitioner within eight weeks, as the petitioner did not receive an appointment for about 11 years while the other person who was his junior was granted a compassionate appointment. Further, it ordered the Education Department to withhold grants if this direction was not complied with.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 6510 of 2018

Case Title – Rahul S/o Dhondiram Meshram v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment