Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Cal) 857

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.
Abha Yadav (Ghosh) and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of West Bengal and Others – Respondents
WPA No. 18946 of 2018
Decided On : 16-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Partha Ghosh, Amal Kumar Datta, Simran Sureka, Debashis Das.
For the Respondents: Mrinal Kanti Ghosh, Sayantanee Bhattacharjee.

Compassionate appointment is not a right and is subject to the state's policy and discretion. The time frame stipulated under the rules for compassionate appointment cannot be modified or enlarged, and the court cannot interfere with the rejection based on existing rules and time stipulations.

Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Rejection of Compassionate Appointment - ROPA, 2009 - Rules under ROPA, 2009 - Government Order No. 457-Edn(P)/4A-50/83 dated October 12, 1987 - Government Order No. 4-SE(Pry)/4A-17/54 dated January 2, 1995 - Group-C cadre - Group-D employee - Financial criteria - Time-frame stipulated under the rules - Judicial review - Writ of certiorary - Equitable jurisdiction - Bipartite agreement - Existing rule
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, widow and daughter of a deceased teacher, sought compassionate appointment. The claim was rejected based on income criteria and the time frame for application specified under the relevant Government Orders.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the application for the daughter was submitted almost eight years after the death of the teacher, beyond the stipulated two-year period. The court emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a right and depends on the state's policy and discretion. The rejection was upheld based on the existing rules and time stipulations.
Issues: The main issues were the rejection of the compassionate appointment based on income criteria and the belated application for the daughter, beyond the stipulated time frame.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the time frame stipulated under the rules for compassionate appointment cannot be modified or enlarged either by the authority or by the Court. The rejection was based on the existing rules and time stipulations, and the court could not interfere with the same.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and no costs were awarded.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.

Facts:

1. This is a hearing matter upon affidavits.

2. The core challenge is rejection of Compassionate Appointment.

3. The first petitioner is the widow and the second petitioner is a daughter of a deceased Teacher. The Teacher died on July 27, 2007, Annexure P-1 at page 22 to the writ petition. The Managing Committee of the relevant school in its meeting held on August 14, 2007 at page 23 to the writ petition, inter alia, resolved to provide compassionate appointment to the “WARD” of the deceased Teacher.

4. By a communication dated June 08, 2009, Annexure R-1 at page 10 to the report filed by the State respondents, the two daughters of the deceased teacher including the second petitioner submitted their objection before the Headmaster of the relevant school against the claim of the first petitioner seeking compassionate appointment.

5. On June 12, 2009, Annexure P-2 at page 25 to the writ petition, the first petitioner applied before the respondent No. 2 seeking compassionate appointment. By a communication dated October 27, 2009, Annexure P-3 at page 26 to the writ petition, the respondent No. 2 sought for few clarifications and necessary documents from the Headmaster of the relevant school. No further development had thereafter happened.

6. By a communication dated July 15, 2015, Annexure P-4 at page 27 to the writ petition, the first petitioner withdrew her claim for compassionate appointment and applied for her daughter, the second petitioner, who was sufficiently qualified for the Compassionate Appointment. By a communication dated August 31, 2015, Annexure P-6 at page 29 to the writ petition, the respondent No. 2 asked the first petitioner for production of the necessary papers and documents relating to the second petitioner through the school authority for consideration. By a resolution dated June 24, 2016, Annexure P-7 at page 30 to the writ petition, the Managing Committee of the relevant school, inter-alia, resolved to make a request before the State authority for granting compassionate appointment to a member of the family of the said deceased Teacher. Necessary prayer was also made in this regard by the relevant school before the respondent No. 2 through its communication dated October 22, 2016, Annexure P-7 at page 32 to the writ petition.

7. The respondent No. 2 by its communication dated December 26, 2017, Annexure P-9 at page 35 to the writ petition requested the Headmaster of the school to furnish certain clarifications and information. One of such required information was whether the second petitioner submitted application for employment on compassionate ground within two years from the date of death of the deceased Teacher or not. By a clarificatory communication dated January 6, 2018, Annexure P-10 at page 36 to the writ petition the relevant school informed the respondent No. 2 that, the first petitioner being the widow of the deceased Teacher submitted necessary application for compassionate appointment within two years from the date of death of the deceased Teacher. Later she submitted an application for the second petitioner seeking compassionate appointment.

8. The issue was then taken up for consideration by the respondent No. 2 and the prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondent No. 2 under his impugned decision dated April 3, 2018, Annexure P-12 at page 5 to the exception affidavit filed by the petitioner affirmed on December 4, 2023.

9. The said rejection has been assailed through the instant writ petition.

10. The State respondents, namely, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a report in the form of affidavit affirmed on September 25, 2023. The petitioners have filed an exception thereto in the form of affidavit affirmed on December 4, 2023.

Submissions:

11. Mr. Partha Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the said impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 dated April 3, 2018 submits that, the claim of the petitioners for compassionate