U.B. Saha, J.

1. The instant writ appeal is filed by the appellant-writ petitioners for setting aside the judgment and order dated 30.03.2007 in WP(C) No. 95 of 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner for a direction to the State respondents for appointing them on compassionate ground commensurate with their qualifications. Heard Mr. AK Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Add. GA for the state.

2. The case of the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that the petitioners were admittedly appointed on compassionate ground on 13.12.196 and 07.06.1996 to the post of LDC following the death of their respective fathers on 28.09.1995 and 20.11.1995. The educational qualification of the appellant-petitioner No. 1 is M. Com and MBA and the educational qualification of the appellant-petitioner No. 2 is BA (Hons.) and MA in Philosophy. Their main grievance was that some other persons were provided appointment on compassionate ground commensurate to their educational qualification and thus they are also entitled to the same benefit.

3. Mr. Bhowmik while urging for the relief sought for in the appeal would contend that the appellant writ-petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground in a lower post though both of them were highly qualified and they were not provided appointment commensurate with their qualifications which benefit was allowed to other persons namely Smt. Debjani Deb Roy (Sarkar), Sri Mihir Ranjan Pal and Smt. Purnima Choudhury (Laskar) in the year 2001 vide Annexure-C to the writ petition. Thus the State respondents violated the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. He also submits that some other persons were also provided appointment commensurate to their respective educational qualifications in the year 2003. Therefore, the appellant-petitioners cannot and should not be denied by the State respondents the similar benefits. His further contention is that the respondents as a welfare State should not discriminate amongst its citizens, which in the instant case is done. Thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition.

5. Mr. Chakraborty while resisting the submission of Mr. Bhowmik would contend that it was not the case of the petitioners before the writ Court that there were some posts vacant with higher responsibility commensurating to the educational qualification of the petitioners and they were not provided those posts while they were appointed on compassionate ground.

6. He further submits that the State Government considered the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground considering the respective die-in-harness scheme which was in force at the relevant time. He further submits that appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact that the death of an employee while in service leaves his family without any means of livelihood. Mainly the object is to enable the family to overcome the immediate financial crisis and in the instant case it is the admitted position that both the appellant petitioners were appointed by the State Government under the die-in-harness scheme in the year 1996 after the death of their respective deceased father.

7. He finally contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is a well reasoned one and does not call for any interference.

8. We have given our anxious thoughts to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the judgment impugned in this appeal. It appears from the impugned judgment that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the