- (1.) Reverse osmosis process would lead us to make the situation soluble, which has befallen in the eye of the stand taken by Shri Deb Burman for the respondents, which otherwise, is not only interesting but of some legal importance.
(2.) Prior to this, we would rewind the reel containing the sequence of events leading to the filing of this appeal. These are: The appellant No. 1, Rajendra Lal Biswas was an Assistant Head Teacher Piralutola Primary School in the District of Malda. The age took its toll upon him and gradually he began losing command over his physique. This led him to recues himself from his teaching assignment. Consequent to his prayer to that effect for being incapacitated, a Medical Board was set up. Professor & Head of the Department of Medicine, Professor & Head of the Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation and Professor & Head of the Department of Psychiatry, North Bengal Medical College, who formed the Medical Board inspected the profile of the trailing frame of the appellant No. 2. Professor & Head of the Department of Medicine, Professor & Head of the Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation and Professor & Head of the Department of Psychiatry, North Bengal Medical College held under the auspices of the chairman of the said Board that the appellant No. 1 "completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind. . . . . . . . . . . . . " The report of the Board was dated 16/12/2003 (Page 41 of the stay petition). In terms of the same, the respondent No. 4 (The Chairman, Malda District Primary School Council) accepted the findings of the Board and declared him as medically unfit. Obviously, when the crumbs of bread, which the breadwinner otherwise would have secured had he been in service to keep the pot boiling, having been diminished--he prayed for absorption of his Elder Son, the appellant No. 2, Dilip Kumar Biswas in his place. He accordingly wrote to respondent No. 4 (Chairman, District Primary School Council) (Page 43 of the stay petition) on 24.03.2005 portraying his current condition. Nothing fructified. He thereafter approached the respondent No. 3 (Sub-Inspector of Schools, North Circle, Malda) (Page 44 of the stay petition). Eerie silence prevailed. Hunger did not compromise. Needs of a family never whittled down. Passage of time, barring misery, brought no cheers for this set of distraught appellants. Years of being kept in the tenterhooks saw the appellant No. 1 afflicted with illness since he had called it a day from the job of Assistant Head Teacher at Piralutola Primary School. Driven to desperation, he again petitioned respondent No. 4 (Chairman, District Primary School Council) (Page 45 of the stay petition) carrying his grievances. Apathy, compounded agony followed by anxiousness to see the end of it. But there was no light at the end of the tunnel for these poor appellants. Flabbergasted, they sought for ". . . . . . . . . . the high prerogative Constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. . . . . . . " with the following relief: C). . . . . . . . . . . . why a writ of or a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not go commanding the respondents to take steps for grant of compassionate appointment. . . . . . Fulcrum effect of the same before the Hon'ble Single Judge poured out in the following direction; -- .. . . . . . . . Under the recruitment Rules in order to get compassionate appointment, an application, has to be made within two years from that date. Even assuming that such application had been made and has not been considered by the District Primary School Council, Malda, it is not open to the writ petitioner to invoke the high prerogative constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after almost seven years from the date of the writ petitioner No. 1 being declared unfit. The fact of making repeated representations by the writ petitioners to the concerned Council for consideration of the case for compassionate appointment is wholly inconsequential for the purpose of invoking the writ jurisdiction after a lapse of seven years. . . . . . Dismissal of the same has paved the way for this appeal. 2. Delay, delay everywhere; not a drop of relief anywhere. It must have been the murmurs between the appellants. While in exercise of our power of Extended Judicial Review over a decision rendered by a Constitutional Forum, we would neither suffer from any sense of pedagogy or view it from a subaltern angle. But we should see that it is just Justice for the appellants, who have pursued their remedy for all these years like a teasing mirage.
(3.) Will delay be a real monster to eat up the dream and expectation of the erstwhile breadwinner and his bread less family? We have to see the rules.;