RAJIB PAUL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned the order passed by the District Inspector of school vide memo no. 518 (5)/P dated 16.9.2008 by which an application for appointment of the petitioner no. 1 on compassionate ground was rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of this case are that the father of the petitioner no. 1 who was the primary teacher, died on 12.1.2001 leaving behind him surviving his widow the petitioner no. 2 and two sons including the petitioner no. 1 and two unmarred daughters. The petitioner no. 2 applied on 4.7.2002 before the District Inspector of School (Primary), Murshidabad for appointment of the petitioner no. 1 on compassionate ground. During the pendency of the said application the petitioner no. 1 attained the age of 18 years and also passed Madhyamik examination and thus qualified the eligibility criteria enshrined under the statutory rule governing the field of compassionate appointment. Ultimately, the said appointment was rejected by the District Inspector of School which was duly communicated to the petitioner by the Chairman, District Inspector of School, Murshidabad on 5.2.2004 without assigning any reason. The said decision was assailed by the petitioners before this court in W.P no. 15132 (w) of 2006. This court on 8.7.2008 quashed and set aside the said decision being a cryptic order as it does not disclose any reason and directed the District Inspector of School (Primary), Mrshidabad to consider the said application afresh within the stipulated period. By the impugned decision the said application is again rejected by the said authority on manifold grounds namely, (i) the ward having appropriate age and requisite educational qualification should have applied for appointment on compassionate ground immediately after the death of the teacher (ii) that the family has failed to produce any reliable evidence in support of the financial condition and (iii) that the petitioner no. 2, widow, had received family pension and other retiral benefits.

(3.) The said decision is assailed in this writ petition by the petitioners. According to the petitioner, the authorities could not have rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner no. 1 has to make an application immediately after the death of the father. It is further contended that when the application which was filed by the petitioner no. 2, widow, came for consideration the petitioner no. 1 acquired the requisite age and educational qualification and thus become eligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. He strenuously argued that the Pradhan of the concerned Panchayat certified the annual income of the family which cannot be said to be sufficient for providing two square meals to the family. Lastly it is contended that the payment of the retrial benefit and/or pension cannot be a ground for rejection of the application for appointment on compassionate ground. To buttress such submission, reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this court in case of Robin Rout Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2009 (4) CHN 748, Sujay Kumar Pandit reported in 2010 (4) CHN 310, Tapan Kumar Barman Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2009 (1) CHN 23, Nazrul Islam & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2009 (1) CHN 339 and a judgment of the apex court in case of Balbir Kaur & Anr. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2000) 6 SCC 493, in case of Syed Khadim Hussian Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. .reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195 and a Single Bench judgment of this court in case of Namita Pramanick Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2008) 1 CLT 217 (HC). Per contra, the learned Advocate appearing for the state respondents submits that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Such appointments are made to overcome the sudden financial crisis which the family of a deceased teacher has faced due to death of bread winner. It is further contended that the family has received the retiral benefits and pension which does not entitle the appointment on compassionate ground.