Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, Md.Abdul Ghani, JJ. - (1.) THIS judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge dated 5th July, 2005 though brief but with reason is challenged.
(2.) THE learned Trial Judge directed the school Council concerned to consider the writ petitioner/appellant for appointment on compassionate ground taking into consideration of the issue of hardship. The learned Judge then observed that if it is found that the writ petitioner and the members of his family is in financially distress condition, he must be given appointment. The learned Trial Judge has held that writ petitioner is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. His Lordship is of the view that there is no distinction between adopted son and natural son under Rule 14 which provides for compassionate appointment. The aforesaid decision of interpretation of Rule 14 of the learned Trial Judge is under challenge.
(3.) MR . Sanyal learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that before the final rule was brought in to existence, a draft rule was prepared where specifically adopted son was included but thereafter at the time of finalisation of the rule, the Legislature in its wisdom has excluded the word 'adopted', so, he urges that we should infer that Legislature has excluded word 'adopted'.;