Patherya, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order passed by the respondent no. 2 dated 26th May, 2011. The case of the petitioners is that the teacher died on 2nd July, 2007 and his widow applied for compassionate appointment for her younger son, namely, the petitioner no. 2. As no step was taken by the respondent no. 4, W.P. No. 31403 (W) of 2008 was filed and an order was passed on 18th June, 2009 whereby the respondent no. 4 was directed to take a reasoned decision while disposing of the petitioners' application for compassionate appointment. On the basis of the said order passed the respondent no. 4 by communication dated 2nd September, 2010 requested the respondent no. 5 to send the proposal alongwith the necessary papers for appointment of the petitioner no. 2. As no steps was taken by the respondent no. 4 WP 21635 (W) of 2009 was filed in which an order was passed on 25th February, 2011 directing the respondent no. 2 to take a decision on the application filed and to submit a report.
(2.) DURING the pendency of this writ petition Memo dated 3rd March, 2011 was issued by the respondent no. 2 directing the respondent no. 4 to submit the documents specified in the said Memo of March 2011. At the time of hearing the said Memo of March 2011 was placed before court on 25th March, 2011 and on the basis thereof an order was passed on the same date by which the respondent no. 2 was directed to consider grant of approval and take a decision on the basis of the respondent nos. 4's proposal within the time set out therein. The respondent no. 2 considered the case of the petitioner and by order dated 26th May, 2011 rejected the petitioners' claim. By order dated 25th March, 2011 the respondent no. 2 had been directed to take a decision within a certain period of time and the matter was directed to appear in the list thereafter. As no step were taken, Suo Motu contempt Rule was issued against the respondent no. 2. The order dated 26th May, 2011 is bad as it has chosen to rely on the requirements set out in the Memo dated 3rd March, 2011.
(3.) FROM a reading of the communication dated 2nd September, 2010 the respondent No. 4 has proposed the name of the petitioner no. 2 for compassionate appointment as a majority of the family members had given their no objection. Petitioner no. 1 has five children. The eldest son is living independently and has not appeared before the authorities in spite of notice. Out of three daughters two daughters have given their no objection. The whereabouts of Kalyani Das one of the daughters is not known. Therefore, it is not possible for the petitioner to obtain her no objection. A document in this regard has also been issued by the Pradhan on 3rd October, 2010.;