The scheme for compassionate appointment does not provide for any interview for determination of suitability of the applicants. The criterion towards selection is on the basis of penury and not merit. The word 'suitability' has to be understood in the light of the said scheme and does not mean that the most meritorious candidate should be selected.

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 3rd September, 2015 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA 169 of 2013.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that the petitioner’s father died-in-harness on 28th November, 2005 while working in the post of an Accountant under the respondent authorities. The petitioner’s mother made an application to the authorities on 19th May, 2006 for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Responding to the same, an enquiry was conducted and a screening committee found the petitioner fit to be called for an interview. The petitioner was called for an interview by a letter dated 16th August, 2006 and he duly appeared before the interview board on 14th December, 2007. By a letter dated 3rd January, 2008 the petitioner’s prayer was not acceded to in view of the latest government orders. The relevant government orders and the names of the candidates who have been given compassionate appointment since the year 2006 were sought for through an application under the Right to Information Act. In response thereto, some office memoranda were forwarded to the petitioner on 20th July, 2010. Aggrieved by the denial of the respondents to grant compassionate appointment, the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal through OA 169 of 2013. Upon contested hearing, the said original application was dismissed by an order dated 12th January, 2015 passed by a learned Administrative Member. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WPCT 55 of 2015 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 18th March, 2015 setting aside the order passed by the learned Administrative Member and directing the Registrar of the learned Tribunal to list the matter before an appropriate Division Bench consisting of at least one Judicial Member. Pursuant thereto, the matter was placed before the a Bench consisting of a learned Judicial Member and the same learned Administrative Member, who passed the earlier order dated 12th January, 2015 in OA 169 of 2013. The petitioner’s claim was again rejected by the learned Tribunal by an order dated 3rd September, 2015.

3. Records reveal that as per leave granted by this Court on 11th May, 2016 one Sri Akash Biswas and one Sri Prasenjit Pakira were impleaded as respondent nos.7 and 8 to the writ petition. The said respondents have filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition and the respondent nos.2 to 6 have filed an affidavit-in-opposition and also a supplementary affidavit.

4. Mr. Panda, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the selection process was undertaken to fill up two Group C posts and one Group D post. The respondents, according to him, have not appropriately considered the indigence and penury of the respective families of the competing candidates seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Drawing the attention of this Court to the minutes dated 4th December, 2007 of the meeting of the screening committee, he submits that upon being satisfied about the financial stringency faced by the family, the petitioner was called for an interview. However, the minutes of the meeting dated 14th December, 2007 of the interview committee would reveal that the petitioner was ousted from the zone of consideration by simply stating that he was not suitable for appointment as Clerk/Typist or as a Group-‘D’ staff on the basis of his performance in the interview. Due to absence of any indication in the minutes as to why the petitioner was not found suitable it is impossible to ascertain the genuineness of such action. The minutes would further reveal that the respondent no.8 was also not found suitable for the post of Clerk/Typist, however, he was given appointment in a Group D post. The respondents have practised discrimination and the private respondents were appointed in derogation to the provisions of the scheme towards grant of compassionate appointment.

5. He f