GOPAL MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the strength of Division Bench decision of this Court in Sajal Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in,1999 1 LabIC 3405, the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissed the writ application filed by the present appellant on the ground that at the time of demise of his father he was a minor and in view of Rule 14 of the Leave and Recruitment Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules') framed under section 106 of the West Bengal Primary Education Act', 1973 he was not entitled for compassionate appointment. Shri Bari for the Appellant has submitted before us from the various annexures of the stay petition that the father of the Appellant passed away on 11.2.2002. The Appellant attained the age of 18 years in 2005 and on 30.1.2006 the District Inspector of Schools, Paschim Medinipur (Respondent No.3) wrote to the Chairman of the District Primary School Council, Paschim Medinipur (Respondent No.5, Pg.28 of the Application) recommending his case for compassionate appointment. On the basis of such recommendation the Respondent No.5 (Chairman, of the District Primary School Council. Paschim Medinipur) wrote to the Respondent No.2 (The Director of School Education) forwarding the claim of the appellant on 3.5.2006. But as he did not receive any response he approached the Hon'ble Writ Court and in course of hearing of the Writ Application, according to Shri Bari, on the directions passed by His Lordship an affidavit was used by the State which incorporated the letter (annexure R-2) written by the Director of School Education to the Respondent No. 1 that on the ground of the Appellant being a minor his case could not be considered.

(2.) Shri Bari has distinguished the decision of the Division Bench in Sajal Kumar Mondal's case . According to Shri Bari as the prayer for compassionate appointment was already in process when the appellant had attained majority, in the meantime the said decision of Sajal Kumar Mondal would have little application and furthermore when the Respondent No.2 (Director of School Education) has himself sought for clarification from the Respondent No. 1 as to whether the Rules be relaxed for the purpose of giving compassionate appointment, the situation cannot remain static.

(3.) Shri Bari, as a part of his submission, referred to a Division Bench decision of Syed Ifticar Ali v. State of West Bengal, reported in, 2011 2 CalHN 17. According to Shri Bari the said Division Bench decision in Syed Iftikar Ali took note of the decision of the Supreme Court in Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar, reported in, 2006 9 SCC 195 which had not been taken note of by the Hon'ble Trial Court and the said Division Bench decision which was later, in point of time, took the earlier Division Bench decision in Sajal Kumar Mondal's case without having taken note of the Supreme Court Judgment in Syed Khadim Hussain , which is required to be followed.