The court affirmed that higher qualifications do not disqualify candidates for lower posts and upheld the employer's discretion in setting educational requirements for compassionate appointments.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

1. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated April 16, 2022 passed by the Zonal Manager, Durgapur Zonal Office and for a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to appoint the petitioner in the post of Peon after taking into consideration the qualification of Senior Secondary Examination or to appoint the petitioner in the post of Part Time Sweeper after taking into consideration his qualification as Madhyamik passed.

2. One Kanai Basfore, the father of the petitioner while working as Ex-HKSS in the subordinate cadre at Palasipara Branch of erstwhile United Bank of India died in harness on July 31, 2018. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment immediately thereafter.

3. The prayer for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was considered by the authorities and the same stood rejected by the order dated April 16,

2022. The grounds for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was two fold. Firstly, that the petitioner does not fulfil the educational qualification required for the posts of Part Time Sweeper, Peon and Clerk and secondly, that the monthly income of family from all sources is more than 60% of the last drawn monthly salary (net of taxes) of the deceased employee.

4. Mr. Sinha, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rina Dutta & Ors. v. Anjali Mahato & Ors. reported at 2010(3) CHN (CAL) 168 in support of his contention that a higher qualification cannot be a bar in appointing a candidate. He submits that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner who passed the Madhyamik Examination possessed a higher qualification as the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Part Time Sweeper was “ Maximum not passed 10 th class/standard” .

5. Mr. Sinha submits that since higher qualification cannot be a bar in the matter of giving appointment, the order impugned rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfil the essential educational qualification cannot be sustained.

6. He further submits that the monthly income of the family from all sources is much less than 60% of the last drawn monthly salary of the deceased employee and therefore, the finding of the concerned authority in the order dated April 16, 2022 in that regard also calls for interference. In support of such contention, Mr. Sinha draws the attention of the Court to several documents annexed in the affidavit in reply to show that the younger son of the deceased employee is residing elsewhere and is not rendering any financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee.

7. He further submits that in the order dated April 16, 2022, the authorities have not given any detailed calculation as to the monthly income of the family, as required under the scheme for compassionate appointment.

8. Mr. Sinha further submits that the authority should be directed to re- consider the case of the petitioner after taking into consideration the aforesaid materials and to take a fresh decision in this regard.

9. Mr. Sinha, learned advocate refers to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India v. Nitin reported at 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1873 in support of his contention that consideration for appointment must be strictly in accordance with the preval