Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Khondakar Minhazuddin vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 June, 2011

Author: Biswanath Somadder

Bench: Biswanath Somadder

                                                  1


June,
2011.
KB)

                                             W.P. No. 370(W) OF 2011

                                          Khondakar Minhazuddin
                                        Versus
                                       The State of West Bengal & Ors.



                    Mr. Ekramul Bari ....for the petitioner.

                    Mr. Goutam Banerjee ...for the State.



              None appears on behalf of the District Primary School Council, Burdwan,

        when the matter is taken up for consideration although learned advocate

        representing the State is present.

              The writ petitioner is the son of an assistant teacher of Raigram High

        School situated in the district of Burdwan, who died-in-harness on 7th June,

        2005. Upon the death of the teacher, the Headmaster of the school, by a memo

        dated 16th August, 2005, approached the concerned District Inspector of Schools

        with a prayer for appointment of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground in

        the died-in-harness category. A copy of the said memo handed up by the learned

        advocate for the writ petitioner may be kept on record. Subsequently, by another

        memo dated 10th November, 2006, the Headmaster forwarded some additional

        papers relating to the prayer for compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner

        to the concerned District Inspector of Schools. A copy of the said memo which is

        also handed up by the learned advocate for the petitioner, may be kept on record.
                                         2


      Thereafter, for almost three years the concerned District Inspector of

Schools did precious little to consider the prayer for compassionate appointment

of the writ petitioner in the died-in-harness category. Then, on 30th July, 2009,

the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Burdwan, issued a memo to the writ

petitioner for submission of option for sponsoring name as primary teacher/for

non-teaching post on compassionate ground.         The writ petitioner was also

directed to attend the office of the said District Inspector of Schools on 14th

August, 2009, alongwith original copies of testimonials and other documents as

stated in the said memo. Subsequently, on 27th January, 2010, the Chairman,

District Primary School Council, Burdwan, requested the writ petitioner to

appear for a personal hearing at the office of the Council on 12th February, 2010,

with all original certificates and testimonials together with admit card for

Madhyamik/ School Final/Higher Secondary Education. Other papers, as stated

in the said memo dated 27th January, 2010, were also directed to be furnished by

the writ petitioner to the Council.

      It appears from record that the District Primary School Council, Burdwan,

subsequently forwarded the proposal of appointment of the writ petitioner on

compassionate ground to the office of the Director of School Education, West

Bengal, by a memo bearing no. 8722 dated 1st November, 2010. This proposal of

the Council was considered and rejected by the Director of School Education,

West Bengal, which appears from a memo dated 2nd June, 2011, issued by the

Director of School Education, West Bengal, addressed to the Chairman, District

Primary School Council, Burdwan, a copy whereof, handed up by the learned
                                          3


advocate for the State, may be kept on record. The only reason for rejection of

the proposal of the District Primary School Council, Burdwan, for appointment of

the writ petitioner on compassionate ground under the died-in-harness category,

appears to be based on a Government Order dated 26th June, 2009. It has been

categorically observed in the said memo dated 2nd June, 2011, that the family of

the deceased teacher cannot be treated as financially distressed as per of the said

Government Order.

      The facts of the case, as elucidated above, is a classic example of sheer

bureaucratic apathy and total non-application of mind on the part of the

concerned State authorities. How it is so, will be apparent presently.

      The bureaucratic apathy is manifest even from the face of record.        The

prayer for appointment on compassionate ground of the writ petitioner was

forwarded by the Headmaster of the school to the concerned District Inspector of

Schools as far back as on 16th August, 2005. Between 16th August, 2005 and

30th July, 2009 - a period of almost four years - the office of the District

Inspector of Schools (SE), Burdwan, instead of playing a proactive role, simply

hibernated over the prayer for such appointment. The learned advocate for the

State has not been able to give any plausible reason as to what the office of the

concerned District Inspector of Schools was doing between 16th August, 2005

and 30th July, 2009.

      Now comes the example of total non-application of mind by the State

authorities.   It appears that the Director of School Education, West Bengal,

rejected the proposal of appointment on compassionate ground of the writ
                                           4


petitioner, as forwarded by the District Primary School Council, Burdwan, on 1st

November, 2010, solely on the basis of a Government Order dated 26th June,

2009.

        A bare perusal of the Government Order dated 26th June, 2009, reveals

that the same is actually a notification which introduces certain amendments to

the West Bengal Primary School Teachers' Recruitment Rules, 2001.                    The

amendments      concerning   Rule   14,       which     relates   to   appointment   on

compassionate ground nowhere indicates that retrospective effect is to be given

in respect of such amendments. Thus, the amendments concerning Rule 14 as

contained in the said notification dated 26th June, 2009, could only be effective

and binding for deciding proposals for compassionate appointment under the

died-in-harness category, in such cases where applications have been lodged on

or after 26th June, 2009, and not earlier.            Had the application of the writ

petitioner for compassionate appointment been considered by the concerned

authority as soon as the same reached the hands of the said authority, i.e., in the

year 2005, the question of relying on the notification dated 26th June, 2009,

would not have arisen. Reliance on the said notification by the Director of School

Education, West Bengal, in the facts of the instant case where the writ

petitioner's father expired on 7th June, 2005, and his prayer for appointment on

compassionate ground was forwarded by the Headmaster of the school to the

concerned District Inspector of Schools on 16th August, 2005, is, therefore, a

clear example of total non-application of mind on the part of the office of the

Director of School Education, West Bengal.
                                           5




      In this context, the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in

a recent judgment and order rendered in AST No. 119 of 2011 (ASTA No.104

of 2011)(Sri Satyagopal Mishra Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) dated

20th April, 2011, may be aptly quoted:-

            "Wrapping up, we find the Appellant has passed the litmus test of
         compassionate appointment he deserves so. In fact, the Hon'ble Single
         Judge in his Lordship's Order which has been carried at the instance of
         Shri Bari in Appeal has also much to his Lordship's chagrin found the
         action smacks of arbitrariness. We would, in our power of extended
         judicial review, simply amplify the same and modify the same by way of
         directing that as he had qualified for the appointment Respondent no.2

would pass necessary directions in this regard and proposal submitted by Respondent No.5 be implemented by the Respondent No.2 within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order. This unfortunate Appellant has been pursuing his relief since January 2003 but fortune did not smile. It always remains concealed under the cloud of executive indifference. Now it should be just justice and it would be just desert. Otherwise it would be "Twixt tweedledum and tweedledee". The discipline of law, the due process of law and the rule of law become mere claptrap if Judges bound to obey precedent choose to disobey untenable alibi.' And, behind the stonewall of rules and dead regulations would wail the appellant "How long O Lord, how long !" [Fuzlunbi Vs. K. Khader Vali :: (1980) 4SCC 125."

For reasons stated above, the rejection of the writ petitioner's case by the Director of School Education, West Bengal, as appearing from the memo dated 2nd June, 2011, is liable to be set aside and quashed and is accordingly set aside and quashed. The Director of School Education, West Bengal, is directed to reconsider the proposal of the Chairman, District Primary School Council, 6 Burdwan, dated 1st November, 2010, afresh, in the light of the observations made hereinabove without relying on the notification dated 26th June, 2009. Such decision shall be taken by the Director of School Education, West Bengal, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks, but not later than four weeks from date of communication of a photostat certified copy of this order.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.

(Biswanath Somadder, J.)