The main legal point established in the judgment is that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but if an applicant is bona fide and fulfills the necessary qualifications, the State should consider the special circumstances and grant the appointment.

JUDGMENT :

Aniruddha Roy, J.

Facts:

1. This is a claim for compassionate appointment. The father of the petitioner was working as Group-D staff at one Kalitha High School, District – Birbhum (for short, the school). The father of the petitioner died while in service on April 3, 2006 at his 43 years of age, Annexure P-1 at page 37 to the writ petition.

2. The mother of the petitioner being the widow applied for compassionate appointment on August 14, 2007, Annexure P-2 at page 38 to the writ petition. On October 20, 2008 during pendency of the said application submitted by the mother, the mother died at her age of about 35 years, Annexure P-3 at page 39 to the writ petition. Thus, the parent died leaving surviving three minor children of whom petitioner is the eldest one.

3. The petitioner attained majority on December 21, 2008 then the petitioner on March 4, 2009 applied for compassionate appointment in place and stead his father who died in harness, Annexure P-41 at page 40 to the writ petition. The Managing Committee of the school forwarded the application before the respondent No. 3 on March 4, 2009, Annexure P-5 at page 41 to the writ petition.

4. Since cause of the petitioner was not addressed and the same did not receive any attention of the respondent No. 3 the petitioner applied in the first round of writ litigation WP 7527 (W) of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated July 7, 2009 by a co-ordinate bench with a direction upon the respondent No. 3 to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner. Pursuant to and in terms of the said direction, the respondent No. 3 gave its decision dated January 29, 2010, Annexure P-9 at page 49 to the writ petition rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the sole plea that, the application of the petitioner was not submitted within the period of two years from the date of death of the employee-father in terms of the Government Order No. 4-SE(Pry) dated January 2, 1995.

5. Challenging the said decision of the respondent No. 3 dated January 29, 2010 the petitioner applied in the second round of writ litigation W.P. 16081 (W) of 2010. By an order dated August 2, 2010 the said second writ petition was disposed of by a co-ordinate bench directing the Director of School Education to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically in view of the observation made therein. Pursuant to the said direction, the Director of School Education considered the claim of the petitioner and again rejected the same by its order dated March 24, 2011 on the same ground of the rigor of Two years, Annexure P-11 at page 55 to the writ petition.

6. The record shows that, the Commissioner of School Education (previously Director of School Education) reviewed its said decision dated March 24, 2011 and gave its decision dated April 17, 2012 on review but rejected the claim of the same ground. However, requested the Principal Secretary, Education Department to cause the necessary amendment in the said Government Order dated January 2, 1995, but, the decision for rejection of the claim of the petitioner was not interfered with, Annexure P12 at page 58 to the writ petition. The Commissioner of School Education had pursued the issue before the Secretary of the School Education by its communication dated October 4, 2012, Annexure P-13 at page 61 to the writ petition.

7. The petitioner then in the third round of writ litigation W.P. 26418 (W) of 2015 challenged the said decision of the Director of School Education dated March 24, 2011. By an order dated November 30, 2015 a coordinate bench set aside the decision dated March 24, 2011 and directed the respondent No. 3 to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the said decision on review dated April 17, 2012.

8. Pursuant to and in terms of the said direction of the co-ordinate bench dated November 30, 2015, the respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated June 3, 2016 once again rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the said