IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.
Sanay Adhikari - Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others - Respondents
WP No. 10992(W) of 2017
Decided On : 29-06-2017
Compassionate Appointment - Primary School Teacher - West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2001 Rule 14 - The court discussed the legal provisions of Rule 14 of the Recruitment Rules, which prescribes the circumstances for granting appointment on compassionate grounds. The court highlighted the requirement that the applicant must be at least 18 years old and must apply within two years from the date of death of the concerned employee. The court also emphasized that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that equitable considerations cannot override legal principles.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash a Memo rejecting his appointment as a Primary School Teacher on compassionate grounds following the death of his mother, who was an Assistant Teacher. The petitioner's age and educational qualifications were contested by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's prayer based on lack of requisite educational qualification was not valid as it was not the basis for the impugned memo. The court also held that the requirement of higher qualification introduced by an amendment did not apply to the petitioner, as the un-amended Rule was in force at the time of his mother's death. However, the court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's prayer based on his age, as he had attained majority beyond two years from the date of his mother's death.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's age and educational qualifications in relation to the compassionate appointment on grounds of his mother's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the rejection of a prayer for appointment on compassionate grounds must be adjudged based on the reasons contained in the order and that equitable considerations cannot override legal principles. The court also highlighted the requirement that the applicant must be at least 18 years old and must apply within two years from the date of death of the concerned employee.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application, upholding the rejection of the petitioner's prayer for appointment on compassionate grounds based on his age, while rejecting the rejection based on lack of requisite educational qualification.
1. In this writ application the petitioner prays for quashing of a Memo dated 27 August, 2013 issued by the Chairman of the Purba Medinipur District Primary School Council (respondent no. 4) whereby the petitioner’s prayer for appointment as Primary School Teacher on compassionate ground has been rejected. The petitioner further prays for an order directing the respondents to appoint him in the post of Assistant Teacher in a primary school under Panskura Circle-I, Purba Medinipur.
2. The petitioner’s mother was an Assistant Teacher in a primary school in Panskura Circle-I, District Purba Medinipur. She died in harness on 12 January, 2011.
3. On 1 April, 2011 an application was made by the petitioner’s father to the respondent no. 4 for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. On the date of such application, the petitioner was a minor and had just completed 16 years of age.
4. The petitioner passed the Higher Secondary Examination in the year 2012.
5. Upon attaining majority on 5 March, 2013 (the petitioner’s date of birth was 5 March, 1995), the petitioner applied afresh to the respondent no. 4 on 1 April, 2013 for being employed on compassionate ground. The Sub-Inspector of Schools, Panskura Circle forwarded the petitioner’s prayer for appointment on compassionate ground to the respondent no.4 under cover of memo dated 13 May, 2013.
6. By the memo dated 27 August, 2013 which is impugned in this writ application, the respondent no. 4 rejected the petitioner’s prayer.
The impugned memo reads as follows:-
“In reference to the above subject & Memo the undersigned has to inform him that as the age of the applicant i.e. Sanay Adhikary is below eighteen years within two years from the death of the deceased teacher, for this reason his proposal for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be accepted by this Council.”
7. Subsequently, the petitioner made representations dated 20 November, 2013 (through his Advocate), 10 April 2014 and 5 May, 2015 to the respondent no. 4 renewing his prayer for appointment on compassionate ground but such representations did not receive any response.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as on the date when the respondent no 4 considered and rejected the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis, the petitioner had completed 18 years of age and had attained majority. Hence, the rejection of the petitioner’s prayer on the ground that he was below 18 years within two years from the death of his mother, was wrongful. Learned Counsel submitted that the age of the applicant should be considered as on the date of consideration of this application. In this connection, Learned Counsel relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain-vs.-State of Bihar, (2006) 9 SCC 195. Learned Counsel also relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of In Re: Gopal Mondal, (2012) 3 CLJ (Cal) 66.
9. Opposing the writ application, Mr. Pinaki Dhole, Learned Counsel for the State referred to Rule 14 of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2001 (in short the ‘Recruitment Rules’) which prescribes the circumstances in which appointment may be granted on compassionate ground. He submitted that admittedly the petitioner did not attain 18 years of age within two years from the date of death of his mother. A minor i.e. one below the age of 18 years cannot apply for appointment on compassionate ground and the period of two years mentioned in Rule 14(1) of the Recruitment Rules is not extendable. In this connection learned Counsel relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Piali Saha-Vs.-State of West Bengal, (2013) 1 CHN (Cal) 18.
10. Learned Counsel for the State further submitted that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification as prescribed by Rule 6 of the Recruitment Rules. He does not have the requisite marks in the Higher Secondary Examination nor the requisite training
Abhishek Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
All India Railway Recruitment Board vs. K. Sham Kumar
Anil Kumar Neotia v. Union of India
Madhyamik Siksha Mondal M.P. vs. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samity
Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner
South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Employees Union vs. B. Yashodabai
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.