Decided on March 01,2019

Chandra Sekhar Mondal Appellant
State Of West Bengal And Ors Respondents


Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - (1.) Two parallel skeins of events are weaved into the tapestry which make up this writ petition -and only one of them is WP No.14828 (W) of 2016, instituted by Chandra Sekhar Mondal for quashing of the orders dated July 8, 2013 and July 18, 2013, and for being allowed to work in terms of the appointment letter dated June 15, 2010, all said to be in terms of the order dated November 21, 2011 passed by the respondent no. 2, the Director of School Education, which claims on the tenuous right to have an appointment on compassionate ground by the petitioner, in respect of his father who died in harness on May 18, 1983 and in respect of which the first time that the respondents were directed to take a decision only on November 7, 2005. Whether the writ petitioner's family was on the brink of starvation, how they survived for 22 years, whether this was a case for tiding over the family of the deceased, the only bread earner, immediately after death, cannot be found from the records of the case or even the orders on which the writ petitioner claims. All that can be said is that the writ petitioner has treated the right to be appointed on compassionate ground, when application in that behalf was made by him on attaining majority beyond the statutory period of two years, to be a paternal right or a right to property as he was to the manor born. I am constrained to remark that a coordinate bench of this Court (Brother Maharaj Sinha, as His Lordship then was) found nothing remarkable in it and allowed his prayer and directed mandatory appointment. Whether this has achieved finality or not, is of course, to be considered in this writ petition.
(2.) The other thread is not just part of the tableaux depicted in the tapestry, but is actually vibrant with events and claims on a regular process of appointment as sanctioned by law in case of a panel prepared after due process where the respondent no.6 was shown as "first" for the post of a clerk which was shown to be vacant as on the date of the advertisement with prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools. The writ petitioner has challenged that process too. The respondent no. 6 has challenged those orders which are in favour.
(3.) One of the things I will have to decide is whether it is possible to teeter on the brink of starvation just as whether it is likely that a person will teeter on the edge of falling in love, without falling in or abandoning the contemplation of the abyss for more gainful pursuits. That is the crux of the matter though the writ petitioner has tried to take me away from this consideration. The respondent no. 6 has also tried to draw my attention whether the writ petitioner who has indulged in sharp practice, is entitled to any indulgence by a Court of Equity. All of these are weighty matters, to which I shall naturally refer before I decide the matter.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.