Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Raj Kumar Mandal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 February, 2017
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
1
58 W.P.1581 (W) of 2017
sm
03.02.
2017
Raj Kumar Mandal
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya.
.........For the petitioner.
Mr. Shamim ul Bari.
......For the DPSC, Malda.
In spite of service nobody appears on behalf of
the State.
The petitioner's father was a primary school
teacher. He was declared to be medically incapacitated
and was accordingly retired from service. The petitioner
made an application for being appointed on
compassionate basis. Since there was no response, the
petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.25445
(W) of 2013 which was disposed of by an order dated 9th
September, 2013 by relegating the matter to the
Secretary, School Education Department, Govt. of West
Bengal for his consideration and decision. Pursuant to
such order of this Court the Secretary, School
Education Department, Govt. of West Bengal being
respondent No.2 passed an order dated 2nd May, 2014,
paragraph 5 whereby is as under: -
2
" Having considered the facts and circumstances of the matter, I directed the
Commissioner of School Education to examine the financial difficulties of the family. If the financial difficulties are found grave enough to warrant compassionate appointment under extant rules, the commissioner of School Education shall instruct the District Primary School Council, Malda to appoint the petitioner in the post of primary teacher on compassionate ground ignoring department's earlier Memo No.1288-SE (pry) dated 29th December, 2005 provided the petitioner possesses required qualification for primary school teacher as on the date of retirement of the petitioner's father under the recruitment rules then in the force. If the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification the District Primary School Council concerned may appoint him in vacant Gr.D post in the District Primary School Council Office."
The grievance of the petitioner is that the Commissioner of School Education is sitting tight on the matter and has not taken any decision as directed 3 by the respondent No.2.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and learned counsel for the Malda District Primary School Council. It is extremely unfortunate that more than two and half years have elapsed since the respondent No.2 passed the order dated 2nd May, 2014 but the Commissioner of School Education being respondent No.3 has taken no decision in the matter. Such indolence and lackadaisical approach of the respondent No.3 deserves to be deprecated. If the State official functions in this manner, it will spell very bad days for the State and undue suffering for the inhabitants of the State. The respondent No.3 is directed to take a decision in the matter within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order as directed by the order dated 2nd May, 2014 passed by the respondent No.2. It is expected that the respondent No.3 shall wake up from his slumber and discharge his duties with responsibility and some amount of efficiency in future.
The decision taken by the respondent No.3 shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week from the date of the decision.
4
Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to be admitted.
WP No.1581 (W) of 2017 is, accordingly, disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
( Arijit Banerjee, J. )