A primary teacher is eligible for compassionate appointment under Rule 14 (b) of the Recruitment and Leave Rules, 1991, only if he is declared permanently incapacitated by a competent medical board and allowed to retire prematurely at least two years before attaining the age of superannuation.

( 1 ) APPELLANT No. 1 was a primary teacher under the Malda District Primary School Council. His date of birth was July 14, 1942. His natural date of superannuation was July 31, 2002 when he was to attain the age of 60 years.

( 2 ) UNDER Rule 14 (b) of the Recruitment and Leave Rules, 1991 in case a primary teacher was declared permanently incapacitated by competent medical board set up therefor and he was allowed to retire prematurely at least two years before he attained the age of superannuation and it was found that his family was in extreme economic hardship due to sudden retirement, his or her dependant would be considered for compassionate appointment. The appellant No. 1 was ill and he applied on November 24, 1999 to the District Primary School Council for his premature retirement coupled with a prayer for consideration of his son being appellant No. 2 for compassionate appointment. At that time the appellant No. 1 was well within the cut off date for being eligible to apply for premature retirement coupled with a prayer for compassionate appointment of his dependant. He was also not attending school since then.

( 3 ) ALLEGING non-action on the part of the council he filed a writ petition being W. P. No. 626 (W) of 2000 in this Court. It was disposed by the learned single Judge by an order dated february 2, 2000, inter alia, directing the council to act on his representation. In compliance with the said order dated february 2, 2000 medical board was constituted which examined the appellant No. 1 and declared him medically fit vide their certificate dated april 29, 2000.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the finding of the medical board second writ petition being W. P. No. 7440 (W) of 2000 was filed which was disposed of by the learned single Judge vide order dated july 12, 2000 appearing at page 20-22 of the paper book. It was contended before his Lordship that the Council did not follow the required procedure under rule 14 (b ). His Lordship directed the council to have petitioner's case enquired into by the enquiry committee. It was also observed by His Lordship that in case the council was satisfied as to the case made out by the writ petitioner his case would be forwarded to the medical board and it would take steps in accordance with the rules to declare him permanently unfit to continue his duties and to provide his dependant with suitable appointment under the appropriate rules His Lordship also directed the Council to refer the issue to the medical board within two weeks from the date of enquiry to be made by the enquiry committee.

( 5 ) ON July 31, 2000 the petitioner attained the age of 58 years. The council presumably was satisfied with the case made out by the petitioner and as such referred him again to the medical board which called the writ petitioner for his examination on august 26, 2000. Such examination was cancelled as would appear at page 23 of the Paper Book. The medical board re-examined the petitioner on september 23, 2000 and declared him fit again. Within a span of 35 days on October 28, 2000 writ petitioner was again examined by the medical board where he was declared medically unfit.

( 6 ) THE appellant No. 1 was duly communicated the decision of the Medical board vide their communication dated december 1, 2000 appearing at page 24 of the Paper Book and he was allowed to go on premature superannuation.

( 7 ) THIRD writ petition was filed being w. P. No. 7190 (W) of 2001 by the appellant No. 1 which was disposed of vide order dated August 7, 2002 asking the Director, School Education to consider the representation and dispose of the same within the stipulated date.

( 8 ) IN terms of the direction of this Court in the third writ petition reasoned order was passed by the Director on december 18, 2000 appearing at page 48-50 of the paper book. By the said reasoned order the Director rejected the prayer of the appellant No. 1 for compassionate appointment of the appellant