The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application for compassionate appointment should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner, and the process of giving appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment. The court emphasized the need for specific rules or schemes providing for compassionate appointment and cautioned against stretching the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds.

JUDGMENT

Aniruddha Roy, J. - The present writ petition was filed challenging the impugned order dated March 15, 2019 (for short 'the impugned order') passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata (for short, 'the Tribunal') in OA No. 328 of 2017 (for short 'the original application') (Gour Sarkar -versus- The State of West Bengal and others) filed by the writ petitioner, whereunder the relief claimed by the writ petitioner seeking compassionate appointment in the Home Department of the State was declined.

2. The writ petitioner is an Arts Graduate (B.A.). The father of the writ petitioner, since deceased, namely Mukul Sarkar (for short, 'the deceased') was employed as a constable in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, District Murshidabad. The father of the petitioner died on November 12, 2005 leaving behind his widow, two daughters and one son being the writ petitioner herein. At the time of death of his father the petitioner was 11 years old. However, the the two daughters of the deceased were major. The widow of the deceased made a representation dated July 31, 2006 requesting the State Authority that as and when the writ petitioner would become major, appointment on compassionate basis be granted to him, since the deceased had died in harness.

3. Upon attaining majority the writ petitioner made a representation and applied for compassionate appointment on the necessary format with all requisite documents before the State Authorities

4. Upon receipt of the said representation from the writ petitioner the relevant authority of the State directed the Officer-in-Charge, Gazole, Police Station, that the writ petitioner would appear before the police line on January 13, 2014 for employment under exempted category. The petitioner was informed to appear in the written test to be held on February 2, 2016 and the consequent physical fitness procedure. The writ petitioner duly participated in the written test and the physical fitness procedure and performed well in the same, as claimed by the writ petitioner. The petitioner was also called for viva voce tests on February 24, 2016 after qualifying the written test.

5. Thereafter, as the writ petitioner did not receive any communication, he was compelled to move the Tribunal filing OA 255 of 2015. The same was disposed of vide order dated November 26, 2015 passed by the Tribunal whereby Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home (Police) was directed to take a decision with regard to the compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner and communicate the same to him. Pursuant to the said direction the concerned State Authority vide its decision dated July 18, 2016 rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment.

6. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home (Police), the writ petitioner filed the said original Application praying for the following reliefs:

" (a) A direction upon the respondent No.2 to quash and/or set aside the impugned order being No. 3144- PL/PB/2P-212/16 dated 18/7/2016 as set out annexure 'P-6' to the instant application.

(b) The direction upon the respondent specifically the respondent No.3 to rescind and/or withdraw the impugned order and/or not to give effect the annexure 'P-6' by allowing the applicant to join in the post of Constable in "est Bengal Police under compassionate ground in die-in-harness category.

(c) The direction upon the respondent No.2 to consider the prayer of the applicant as stated in Annexure 'P-7' dated 01-12-2016 of the instant application.

(d) To pass such order or orders direction or directions and/or any other order as to Your Lordship may does for and proper."

The said original application was dismissed by the order impugned.

7. Mr. Taraprasad Halder, Learned Advocate, appearing with Mr. Ambu Bindu Chakraborty, Advocate for the writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner was a minor in 2005 when his father died. A representation wa