Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sarkar Mukul Amin vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 September, 2013
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biswanath Somadder
WP No. 12539 (W) of 2012
Sarkar Mukul Amin
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner: Ms. Baisali Ghosal
For the State: Ms. Prativa Ghatak
Judgment on: 25th September, 2013.
Biswanath Somadder, J.
This matter appears under the heading "For Final Disposal". 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 upon the death of his father, who died on 29th April, 2007, while working as an assistant teacher of a high school situated in the district of Murshidabad. From the records, it appears that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP No.4307 (W) of 2010, which was disposed of on 19th July, 2011, with certain directions upon the Director of School Education. 2 Consequently, the matter was taken up for consideration by the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal (formerly known as the Director of School Education), who rendered a decision in the matter, which is now the subject- matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
Perusing the impugned decision rendered by the Commissioner of School Education, it appears that the same is supported with cogent reasons and the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under the died-in-harness category has been rejected since the family of the petitioner cannot be treated as a family in distress unable to provide two square meals and other essentials to the two members of the family. While deciding the matter, the Commissioner of School Education took into consideration the department memo dated 30th January, 2006, as also the memo dated 18th January, 1999, wherein it has been clarified that "extreme economic hardship" would mean that the family failed to provide two square meals and other essentials to the surviving members of the bereaved family. It is evident from a plain reading of the impugned decision that the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal, rejected the petitioner's prayer for compassionate appointment under the died-in-harness category on the basis of the existing Rules/Guidelines/Government Orders which are applicable in such a case.
An applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular group/class of post as a matter of right. Appointment on compassionate ground too, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal 3 proposition that a claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. As a rule, public appointments should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment, but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement, upon taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family (see Union of India & Anr. Vs. Shashank Goswami & Anr., reported in AIR 2012 SC 2294).
The aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court has recently been followed by this Court in at least two decisions, being WP No.20212 (W) of 2012 (Tamal Krishna Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) and WP No.17245 (W) of 2013 (Samim Ahmed Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.).
The issue sought to be raised in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the judgments referred above and upon taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the instant case as stated earlier, no relief as prayed for can be granted to the writ petitioner.
4
The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.) pg.