DEBASIS PATTANAYAK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the writ petitioner has challenged inter alia, the rejection of his prayer for giving him appointment on compassionate ground due to the death of his father who died while working as an Assistant Teacher of Kaithor Primary School, Egra, District Midnapore. The death of the petitioner's father took place on 11th September, 1983 and the deceased teacher left behind him seven dependents including the writ petitioner who was his eldest son. Immediately after such death, the writ petitioner made an application before the President, Ad hoc Committee (School Board), Midnapore, on 1st of October, 1983 praying for an appointment on compassionate ground. At the time of making such application, the writ petitioner was reading in class-X. The authority concerned, however, remained silent and the writ petitioner kept waiting with the forelone hope of getting appointment on compassionate ground. In 1983, however, the writ petitioner could not pass the Madhyamik Examination and he ultimately passed the same in 1987, and on 18th September, 1987 he made another application before the said authority praying for an appointment on compassionate ground and his case was recommended by the Anchal Pradhan as would appear from annexure 'B' to the writ application. The authority concerned, however, kept mum and the writ petitioner went on making representation after representation on 24th September, 1987, 16th January, 1988 and lastly on 30th September, 1994. As the said representations could not move the authority concerned, the writ petitioner had no alternative but to move a writ application in this Hon'ble Court being No. C.O. 17251(W) of 1994 which was disposed of in December, 1994 by Altamas Kabir, J. giving direction upon the Chairman of the concerned Council to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 30th September, 1994 within two months from the date of communication of His Lordship's said order after giving the writ petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Ultimately, the Chairman of the Ad hoc Committee of the Midnapore District Primary School Council, by his order dated 7th March, 1995 rejected the petitioner's prayer inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner's case did not come within the preview of consideration in view of the directive of the Government order dated 12th of December, 1987 read with the Government order dated 2nd of January, 1995, as the writ petitioner failed to submit his application for appointment on compassionate ground within the stipulated period i.e. within 2 years from the date of his father's death. Though the Chairman Ad hoc Committee of the Midnapore District Primary School Council by his said order had rejected the petitioner's prayer, but curiously enough, by the same order, referred the petitioner's case to the Director of Schools (Primary Branch), Government of West Bengal, being the appropriate authority. As the Director of Schools (Primary Branch), Government of West Bengal also remained silent over the matter, the present writ petitioner also moved another writ application before this Hon'ble Court giving rise to C.O. 13181(W) of 1995 which was disposed of by G.R. Bhattacharjee, J. on 18th September, 1995 directing the Director of Schools (Primary Branch), Government of West Bengal to consider the petitioner's representation dated 6th September, 1988 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and such other persons, as might be considered necessary, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the said order. The Director of Schools (Primary Branch), Government of West Bengal, ultimately took up the matter for hearing on 1st January, 1997 and rejected the petitioner's prayer holding inter alia, that the writ petitioner was a minor and not qualified for an appointment of a primary school teacher on compassionate ground when he submitted his first prayer to the District Authority on 1st October, 1983. Moreover he could not obtain the requisite qualification for the said appointment within the stipulated period, i.e., 10th September, 1985 i.e. within two years from the date of death of his father, and later on he obtained the requisite qualification in the year 1987 when almost four years had already lapsed from the date of death of his father. The writ petitioner has challenged the said order being annexure 'G' to the present writ application, in this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is the contention of Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, that since admittedly, he was underqualified to be appointed as a primary teacher on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father, due to his death while working as an Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid school at the time when he made the first application/representation on 1st October, 1983, he made an prayer in his said representation that he might have been appointed in any post. Moreover, if the death of his father had taken place on 11th September, 1983 the application made by the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on 1st of October, 1983 was definitely within time. Further, after the writ petitioner obtained the requisite qualification for being absorbed as an Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground due to the death of his father, he made the subsequent representations in 1987, 1988 and in 1994. The first application of the writ petitioner, however, not disposed of, but in the impugned order, the Director of Schools (Primary Branch), Government of West Bengal observed inter alia, that as the writ petitioner was then not a Madhyamik pass candidate, perhaps his candidature was not processed.

(3.) The whole object and purpose of the scheme to give appointment on compassionate ground is, to give appointment to the dependent of a deceased employee to mitigate the hardship caused due to the death of the bread-earner of his family as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Susama Gosain and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1989 SC 1976. The Supreme Court in its said decision further observed inter alia, that such appointment should therefore be provided immediately to redeem the family in redress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment, supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. It is to be noted that the apex court of the country had used the word suitable and not same post. (Emphasis added)