Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. - (1.) The writ petition has been preferred challenging the impugned denial of the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
(2.) Mr. Maiti, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's wife, namely, Durga Patra (Ghata) (in short Durga) died-in-harness on 22nd June, 2014 while working as an Assistant Teacher of Bajbajia Iswar Chandra Sikshaniketan (in short the said school). Durga was the sole earning member of the family and to tide over the financial hardship due to the loss of the sole bread earner, the petitioner who has to look after Durga's parents, submitted an application for compassionate appointment in the prescribed format to the respondent no.6. The said application was filed along with the educational qualification certificate, the death certificate of the deceased, the legal heir certificate, the certificate of the panchayat samity relating to the financial status. The said application was also recommended by the authorities of the school in which Durga was working, by a resolution dated 16th December, 2014. Upon due consideration of the petitioner's application and being satisfied about the financial hardship suffered, the respondent no.6 was pleased to enlist and register the petitioner's name in Live register for compassionate appointment, as required to be maintained in terms of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Nonteaching Staff) Rules, 2009 (in short the said Rules). After such registration on 1st March, 2017, the respondent no.6 forwarded the petitioner's name to the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (in short the said Commission) by a memo dated 7th March, 2017. Upon receipt of such communication, the respondent no.4 issued a letter dated 29th March, 2017 asking the petitioner to attend his office on 11th April, 2017 along with all the documents as referred to in the said notice for physical verification. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner duly appeared before the respondent no.4 and even after such verification when he was not called for counselling, he submitted a representation to the respondentno.4 on 15th May, 2017 but the same was not responded to.
(3.) As no instruction was forthcoming from the Commission as to why follow up steps have not been taken in terms of the said Rules, this Court by an order dated 14th November, 2017 directed the respondent no.4 to file a report in the form of an affidavit. Pursuant to such direction, an affidavit has been filed and the petitioner has also used a reply to the same.;