Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties.
(2.) IN this application, the Petitioner has prayed the following relief 's: (a) A Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 3, to appoint the ward of the Petitioner in his place within a certain time ; (b) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 3 to allow the ward of the Petitioner for appointment in his place and also to give all ether benefit? to the Petitioner within a certain time. (c) A writ in the nature of certiorari calling upon the Respondents and/or their men or agents to produce the records of the case before this Hon'ble Court so that conscionable justice may also be rendered; (d) A writ in the nature of Prohibition prohibiting the Respondents and/or their men or agents from giving any effect or further effect of the order dated 18th August, 1997 passed by the Respondent no, 3 in any manner whatsoever till disposal of this application. The facts leading to the writ application are as follows: Petitioner while was working as Head teacher of a Primary School, due to his illness submitted an application on March 19, 1996 praying Voluntary Retirement on the ground of physical incapacity. An application for appointment of Petitioner's son also was filed on the same date. On March 22, 1996, concerned Sub -Inspector of Schools referred the matter to the Chairman for consideration. Chairman, Ad hoc Committee of concerned District Primary School Council held the enquiry on October 14, 1996 but no result was communicated to the Petitioner. Petitioner moved this Court in Writ Petition No. CO. 18462 (W) of 1996 praying necessary direction for holding a Medical Board to declare him physically incapacitated to work and thereby to provide relief namely appointment of his son. By the order dated December 24, 1996 this writ application was disposed of by S.R. Mishra, J. (as His Lordship then was) directing the Chief Medical Officer of Health of the concerned District to examine the Petitioner within 7 days and submit his report within three days to the Council. Primary School Committee also was directed to refer necessary papers under the rules for disposal of the Petitioner's grievance. By the letter dated May 22, 1997, Medical Officer directed the Petitioner to appear on June 2, 1997 for Medical Test and on that day Petitioner was declared as unfit to work further. On August 18, 1997, Chairman, Ad hoc Committee of the concerned District rejected the prayer for appointment of the ward of the Petitioner though accepted the declaration of Voluntary Retirement of the Petitioner in view of the Medical Report. On August 26, 1997 Petitioner made a representation before the Chairman of the Primary School Council but nothing was responded, hence this writ application.
(3.) AFTER hearing the parties, direction was given to submit the report of Medical Board and other relevant papers. This writ application has been opposed by filling of Affidavit -in -Opposition by the concerned Primary School Council contending, inter alia, that under Rule 14(b) of the Leave and Recruitment Rules applicable to the Primary Teachers as introduced with effect from the year 1991, since the declaration of Medical Board declaring the Petitioner physically incapacitated to work was made when Petitioner already crossed 58 years of age, no relief could be granted for appointment of the Petitioner's son under the said Rule.;