LOKNATH HANSDA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application, it appears that the petitioner is essentially seeking appointment on compassionate ground under the died -in -harness category following the death of his father, who expired on 1st March, 2005, leaving behind his wife and four children including the writ petitioner. The pleadings reveal that the issue of compassionate appointment of the petitioner was earlier raised before this Court in 2011, when the writ petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition, being WP No. 20918 (W) of 2011. The case of the petitioner in the earlier writ petition was that after his father died on 1st March, 2005, and within a period of two years therefrom, an application was filed on 14th February, 2007, by his mother, praying for compassionate appointment of her elder son, being the writ petitioner. After he had attained 18 years of age in January, 2008, an intimation in this regard was given to the concerned respondent authority on 3rd March, 2008. Without considering such intimation, an order was passed on 15th December, 2008, whereby on the ground that the petitioner had not reached 18 years of age, his application for compassionate appointment was rejected. In such a factual backdrop, the writ petition, being WP No. 20918 (W) of 2011, was filed. The matter was disposed of by an order dated 30th January, 2012, with an observation, which reads as follows:

(2.) IT was on the basis of the above observation that the concerned respondent authority, being the Chairperson, District Primary School Council, Bankura, proceeded to take a fresh decision in the matter, as contained in memo bearing no.1436/2 dated 4th June, 2012. The decision that was taken by the Chairperson, District Primary School Council, Bankura, was to forward the petitioner's case to the Director of School Education, West Bengal (Primary Branch), for grant of approval of appointment in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) WE have seen the earlier Division Bench judgment in case of Sajal Kumar Mondal. It appears that the Division Bench has merely observed that in view of the rule the petitioner has no legal right. But Their Lordships have no occasion to decide this legal issue as argument in this regard was not advanced whether the aforesaid time limit is a mandatory character or not. In Prithwish Samanta & Ors. the Court has not really decided anything independently rather Their Lordships had accepted basically what the learned Single Judge has done. It was opined by the Division Bench that delay in making application can be condoned by virtue of the concept of continuous wrong. The learned Single Judge in case of Sri Prithwish Samanta & Ors. while construing the said Rule 14 has been pleased to hold that the period of two years for making application is extendable applying the provision of section 6(1) of the Limitation Act.