CHANDRAKANT KANDLAL SHETH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned advocate appearing for the parties. In the writ application, the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:--

(2.) IT is the case in the writ application that the petitioner's mother was working as School teacher in primary school under the District Primary School Council, Malda breathed her last on 19th May, 1993 leaving behind his father, himself and another brother. IT is an admitted fact in the writ application that the petitioner's father was working in the post of clerk-cum-typist under the Executive Engineer, PWD, Malda on the basic pay of Rs. 1795/- at the relevant time. Petitioner's application praying appointment on compassionate ground since was kept pending, the petitioner moved the matter in the writ Court in C.O. No. (number not stated) wherein Altamas Kabir, J. by the order dated 21.9.94 directed the concerned District Primary School Council to take steps on the issue in question. In pursuance thereof the District Primary School Council forwarded the matter to the Director of School Education, West Bengal. At this juncture the petitioner came against in this writ Court in C.O. No. 8441(W) of 1995 when the same was disposed of by the order dated 31st July, 1995 passed by G.R. Bhattacharya, J. (as His Lordship then was) directing the Director of School Education, West Bengal to consider the matter in accordance with law. In pursuance of such, the present impugned decision was reached by the Director of School Education, West Bengal on 10th April, 1996. This writ application is being opposed by the learned advocate for the District Primary School Council though no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. On a bare reading of the impugned decision it appears that the petitioner's prayer was rejected only on the ground that the petitioner's father was working under the State of West Bengal and accordingly there was no extreme economic hardship in the family. The impugned order the concerned Officer relied upon Government Order No. 457-Edn(P) dated 12th October, 1987, which provides that for providing a job under die-in-harness category condition precedent would be that the family was in distress and in immediate need of assistance. A Rule regulating the Recruitment and Leave of Teachers in Primary Schools in West Bengal was framed in terms of Section 106 of the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973. In terms of the said Recruitment and Leave Rules applicable to the primary teachers the appointment under died-in-harness category has been incorporated under Rule 14(1)(a), which provides as follows:

(3.) HOWEVER, the petitioner has urged another point in support of his case that other candidates identically placed like the petitioner whose names have been stated in paragraph 8 were given appointment. The petitioner accordingly submits that the petitioner was discriminated in the matter of treatment identically. Providing job to the other candidates, who are identically situated like the petitioner, namely, the situation where one of the parents in service, ipso facto cannot be ground to seek a job under die-in-harness category. It is a settled legal position now that identical treatment for identical cases is not a principle as would be viewed in the negative angle but it has a positive concept where in person concerned seeking relief on application of the said principle must prove his legal right first and thereafter the question of discrimination would be considered. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case of Gurusaran Singh v. N.D. Municipal Committee, reported in as well as the decision passed in the Apex Court in the case of Urmila Debi v. State of Bihar, reported in 1999 SCC (Labour and Service) 642. In both the aforesaid two cases the Apex Court held that the principle of identical treatment of identical cases is nothing but a species in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution and the concept is a positive concept wherein unless and until the parties satisfies legal right to obtain an order, cannot bank upon simply on the illegalities as made by the other authorities by providing relief to some other persons. Having regard to such settled legal position the petitioner accordingly is not entitled to get any relief herein even if the authorities concerned provided job illegally to some other candidates, who are identically placed like the petitioner. Since the petitioner has no legal right to claim job under compassionate ground in terms of Rule 14(1)(a) of the Recruitment and Leave Rules applicable to the Primary school teachers wherein a condition precedent for providing job under die-in-harness category has been stipulated as only in case of extreme economic hardship of the family and when the petitioner's father is working in a post under State of West Bengal, accordingly by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the family is in extreme hardship.