R.Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) Both the petitioner and the respondent have looked their horns with each other to succeed in their respective claims. The claim of the petitioner, according to the learned counsel, is blessed by constitutional flavour deeply embroidred within the broad sweep of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. When the class legislation is silent, the question necessarily is posed up as to whether the State meted out different treatment to different individuals. All are equal is the basic concept of Law and the State is to treat all the individuals with equal treatment. Otherwise, the doctrine of equality and the doctrine of equal treatment shall become a misnomer.
(2.) In the advent of the administrative circular issued by the State, a further question crops up as to whether the statute or the Rules can prevail upon the circular and lost its identity and origin within them. The basic realities and structure of the constitution can never be forgotten in all administrative actions. But when the statute is made and the Rules following from them, could they be dislodged and dethrowned from the sit of justice, unless the viability of the statute or the Rules, as the case may be, is affected. Administrative circulars become a blant weapon in the advent of legislation. If the administrative circulars and the Rules are repugnant to each other, there would be a complete anarchy and the justice will cry in silence.
(3.) The question arises this way in this case. It stands out that the petitioner passed the Madhyamik pariksha conducted by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in the year 1978. It is sad to note that the father of the petitioner died-in-harness which opened the avenue for his heirs for appointment in the school. The petitioner was choosen by the heirs of the deceased employee to be appointed on compassionate ground as the heirs were bereft of income to maintain their livelihood.;