Back
2011 Supreme(Cal) 184
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
AMIT TALUKDAR AND PRABHAT KUMAR DEY, JJ.
Chitra Mali - Appellants
Vs
State Of West Bengal - Respondents
C.A.N. No. 10493 of 2011 IN M.A.T. No. 1558 of 2010
Decided on: Feb 10, 2011
Susanta Paul, Amar Kumar Sinha, Sumita Sen
A daughter is not disentitled from seeking compassionate appointment in the place of her deceased father merely because she is married.
Headnote:
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - WEST BENGAL PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS RECRUITMENT RULES, 2001 - RULE 14(1) - Amendment in 2008 - Daughter's entitlement to compassionate appointment - Change in rule from 'unmarried daughter' to simply 'daughter' - Held, daughter not disentitled from seeking compassionate appointment.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, the daughter of a deceased primary school teacher, sought compassionate appointment in his place. Her application was rejected on the ground that she was married and the rules did not permit compassionate appointment to married daughters. The appellant challenged the rejection order before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the amendment to Rule 14(1) of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2001, which changed the category of persons entitled to compassionate appointment from 'unmarried daughter' to simply 'daughter', did not disentitle the appellant from seeking compassionate appointment.
Issues: Whether the appellant, being a married daughter, was entitled to compassionate appointment in the place of her deceased father.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the amendment to Rule 14(1) of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2001, which changed the category of persons entitled to compassionate appointment from 'unmarried daughter' to simply 'daughter', did not disentitle the appellant from seeking compassionate appointment. The court reasoned that the amendment simply removed the requirement of being unmarried for a daughter to be eligible for compassionate appointment.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and directed the respondent to complete the process of compassionate appointment of the appellant within four weeks.
Talukdar, J.
1. Even if we branch out from the magnificent splendour of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India and look beyond the shadows of Gender Justice, we would be of the view the situation would remain as Mellifluous as before.
2. Matrimony, which otherwise, is a bliss and contentment for a person, worked out to be much to her impairment in course of the sequence of events that we will be required to track in this appeal.
Once upon a time in the remote village of Kundira in the district of Birbhum there lived Shri Shyama Prasad Mali, who graduated from an Assistant Teacher of Muradgunj Primary School as its Headmaster when death claimed him.
3. His spouse (Krishna Mali) and their only offspring, the Appellant Chitra Mali nee Mondal, not only left to mourn the loss but to fend for themselves in his absence, which cast a hollowness in their life, both in the literal sense of the term as well as in the mental form.
4. Late Headmaster, Shri Shyama Prasad Mali met with his end on 22.12.2004 while still he had some more tenure left. The situation in which the family (consisting of the Appellant as well as her Mother Krishna Mali) were pitch forked into, saw the Appellant praying for absorption in the place of her later Father in the compassionate category on 29.08.2005. Be it noted that the composition of the family was certified by the Panchayat (Annexure P-3) and the candidature in favour of the Appellant was abandoned by her Mother (Annexure-P4).
While, perhaps, the family was in a process of tiding over their sorrow while coping with their distress, they were further pushed into the misery of being told that the candidature of Appellant cannot be considered as the same has to be made within a period of two years from the date of death of the breadwinner and the compassionate appointee must have covered 18 years and had a Madhyamik degree. A communique (Annexure- P5) from Respondent No. 5, Chairman of the District Primary School Council, Birbhum dated 19.10.06 paved the way for the litigation, which we have hitherto seen.
5. Acting on the basis of the same, the Appellant wrote to the Respondent No. 5 on 27.10.2006 inter alia to the effect that her prayer may be kept in abeyance as she has already appeared for her Madhyamik examination (Annexure-P6).
6. In the meanwhile, as is evident, she cleared her Madhyamik examination (See Page 21 of the Stay Petition) in June 2008.
An approach was thereafter, made by her before the Respondent No. 5 on 09.02.2009 (Annexure-P8) requesting the latter for consideration of her candidature since she had already passed the Madhyamik examination. It would be pertinent to note that in Paragraph 7 of her representation (Page 24 of the Stay Petition) she had spelt out the distraught situation marriage has brought to her, where she had become the object of indifference of her soul mate and exposed to the vagaries of life with her Mother.
7. Marriages are said to be made in heaven. Some of which are pushed to hell. For her, it was a marriage of convenience, where her spouse has abandoned her realising she will not turn out to be a source of revenue having been unsuccessful in eking out a job in the place of her late Father.
8. Nothing moved. It was all static for her except time.
Perhaps, out of exasperation of the situation, where she could bearing it no more, filed a Writ Petition No. W.P. 4558 (W) of 2009. On 20.09.2009 the Hon'ble trial Court concluded "...........taking into consideration the relevant Rule governing the process of recruitment under compassionate ground, this Court is of the view that a woman whose marriage is subsisting cannot seek such appointment under compassionate ground" and accordingly dismissed the same.
9. This saw her in appeal.
10. We were addressed at the Bar by Shri Susanta Paul in support of the same and Shrimati Sumita Sen for the Council (Respondent No. 5). Whilst Shri Paul would argue that as the Appellant have, in possession of a Madhyamik degree, s
