HARISH TANDON, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the decision of the director of the school education vide memo no. 1224/Se/p dated 11.9.2008 by which an application for appointment on compassionate ground is rejected.
(2.) Undisputedly the husband of the petitioner no. 2 who was the assistant teacher died on 5.11.2003 leaving behind him surviving the widow, the petitioner no. 2, two daughters including the petitioner no. 1. An application was taken out seeking an appointment of the petitioner no. 1 on compassionate ground Ultimately by the impugned memo no. 1224-Se/p dated 11.9.2008, the director of the school education rejected the said application as the family does not come within the definition of the financial hardship in terms of the education departments order no. 85- Sea(pry)/p 4A-38/07 dated 15.2.2008. The petitioner has assailed the said order in contending that the application of the petitioner cannot be rejected by relying the amended rules/ provisions. It is further contended that the disbursement of the retiral benefit cannot be a ground to reject an application for appointment on compassionate ground. Reliance is placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this court in case of Tapan Kumar Barman Vs. state of WB reported in 2009 (1) CHN 23 to contend that the payment of the retiral benefit does not lead to an inference that the family is not in financial distress. On similar point reliance is also paced upon the another Division Bench judgment in case of Nazrul Islam & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2009 (1) CHN 339 and Robin Rout Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2009 (4) CHN 748. In support of the contention that the subsequent amended rule/circular/notification has no applicability, reliance is placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in case of State of WB & Ors. Vs. Bina Debnath & Ors. reported in 2009 (4) CHN 1.
(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the state respondent, while refuting the contention of the petitioner, vehemently contended that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any point of time in future and placed reliance upon a judgment of the apex court in case of Eastern coalfields limited vs. Anil Badyakar & Ors. reported in 2009(3) CHN 138 (SC). It is further contended that the administrative order passed by the authority should not be interfered by the writ court under any circumstances and relied upon a judgement of the apex court in case of UP Financial Corporation vs. Gem Cap. (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 1993 SC 1435. Lastly it is submitted that the government or public authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and upon being satisfied a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family as has been held in case of Bishnupada Gope vs. State of west Bengal & Ors. reported in 1996(1) CLJ 18. Having considered the respective submissions made at the bar, it is undisputed that the petitioner no. 1 is otherwise eligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground so far as the eligible qualification as enshrined under Rule 6 of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules of 2001 is concerned. Admittedly the father of the petitioner no. 1 died on 5.11.2003 and the application is taken out seeking an appointment of the petitioner no.1. From the perusal of the impugned memo no. 1224-Se/P dated 11.9.2008 it is manifest that the director of the School Education, West Bengal does not find the family of the deceased teacher coming within the definition of the financial hardship as envisaged in the government order dated 15.2.2008.;