ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI,J. - (1.) The case of the writ petitioners in this writ application is that the respondent University authorities refused to give compassionate appointment although the writ petitioner No. 2 applied on 18th August, 1992 for premature retirement on medical ground and he was allowed to retire on that ground. On 28th November, 1992 the petitioner No. 2 was examined and he was advised to take steps in the light of the report of the experts. He got this report and submitted before the concerned authorities. But the concerned authorities waited till 10th August, 1996 to decide the matter and on 10th August, 1996 the petitioner No. 2 was informed that since he has crossed the age of 57 years, his prayer for compassionate appointment to his son cannot be granted although the respondents have allowed the petitioner No. 2 to retire on medical ground.
(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 2 has made application on 18th August, 1992 and he has complied with all the requirements as was directed by the concerned University authorities but unfortunately the University authorities took time to decide the matter and for their delay the compassionate appointment could not be given to the writ petitioner No. 1 being the son of the petitioner No. 2. It was submitted that under Right to Information Act the writ petitioners applied before the concerned authorities. From the supplied information it appears that even after expiry of 57 years compassionate appointment was given to different candidates. The writ petitioners have filed supplementary affidavit annexing the same.
(3.) Mr. Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it is a fit case for consideration.;