JUDGMENT Petitioner's husband was died in harness as an Assistant Teacher of a primary school on 8.11.94. 2. The petitioner No.1 made an application for enlistment of her son's name under the Chairman, ad hoc committee, Malda District School. Council for giving service under the compassionate ground. 3. Under the representation, the petitioner contended that her son will appear in 1996 and after passing Madhyamik Examination he may be appointed (petitioner No.2) under the writ petition. 4. Such prayer was renewed on 7.7.97 and the son made an application again in 1997 for his appointment as far back as on 17.7.97 which was received by the Sub-Inspector of School of the concerned Circle on 21.7.97. It is to be noted herein that since in 199 the petitioner got compartmental in science group, he completed his course actually in 1997. 5. The Chairman of the Council sent necessary papers as well as proposal for appointment of the petitioner No.2 as primary teacher on compassionate ground but the Director of School Education disapproved such proposal being time barred under the Memo No. 753 (SC)/P dated 18.5/1.6.98. Thereafter, the petitioner made further representation before the Chairman of the Council which, in turn, forwarded to the Director of School Education for reconsideration of the humanitarian ground. 6. The Director of the School Education again informed the Council that the decision and/or earlier directions of the Director stands which in effect, is the refusal of the prayer of the petitioner No.2 which brought the petitioners before this Court. 7. The Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have appeared but they have hardly any say in this respect. They can only forward the proposal to the Director of School Education which was done by them but the same was refused. 8. Under the circumstances, there should not have been any embargo in deciding the issue herein. But the Court thought it fit that once for all a guideline should be given for future purposes because in so many matters the similar circumstances are arising and the Court is facing difficulty in meeting the appropriate point due to the Government orders in one hand and various Courts orders in other hand. 9. But the Court thought it fit that once for all a guideline should be given for future purposes because in so many matters the similar circumstances are arising and the Court is facing difficulty in meeting the appropriate point due to the Government orders in one hand and various Courts orders in other hand. 9. It is to be noted that a party in default in making application within the prescribed period cannot get an opportunity for his redressal of grievance and to that extent all Courts are more or less unanimous subject to different factual position. 10. It is also to be noted that the Court held principally delays one of the cause of refusal because a person who can handle the financial position of the family for a long period without getting any service cannot be regarded as person for having compassionate respect for the death occurred in harness of the bread earner. 11. This is further to be noted that if a person after attaining the majority and after expiry of the specified period applying for the first time for having a consideration of compassionate ground on account of death in harness such prayer may be refused. 12. But the fact cannot be fit in with such embargoes because the wife of the deceased made her application within the prescribed period on account of her son after attaining majority and the same was forwarded by the Maida District Primary Councilor its Chairman rightly. According to that score, the impugned order suffers misconception of law for various reasons. 13. One of such reasons is financial strength of the family. The another situation is eligibility of getting such service. Third one is minor has to be represented by the natural guardian everywhere in accordance with law till attaining the majority. 14. Financial strength of the family is a very relatable term. Financial strength of one family cannot be equated with other. "Compassionate" should not be compassionate alone following the equitable principle which is depending upon various circumstances i.e. (a) family circumstances; (b) wealth of the family or (c) capacity of the person or persons of the family living. One can beg for survival of the family but can we visualize properly? 15. Thought and concept of giving relief to one under the com•• passionate ground cannot be equated with the thought and concept refusing the same to other. One can beg for survival of the family but can we visualize properly? 15. Thought and concept of giving relief to one under the com•• passionate ground cannot be equated with the thought and concept refusing the same to other. This is a matter of absolute discretion depending upon the circumstances, otherwise the word "Compassionate" should not be used in such type of case. The very word put under the law is for sympathetic consideration. It is flowing from the equity directly. Therefore, a Court is to be conscious more in refusing than accepting the cause of the aggrieved party. 16. Let me now evaluate the situation. An application was made by the mother within the prescribed period who is residing along with minor son, therefore, it cannot be said that the application is a separate application by mother for her own interest not for the son and for which the son's redressal will be refused taking the plea that he was out of time in making the application.. On the other hand prayer of the mother shows that she has no objection in getting his son's service and in fact prayed for him not for his own. Under such circumstances, the application cannot be treated as an application out of time, This is an appropriate approach of natural guardian is accordance with law for her minor child. 17. A single bench of this Hon'ble Court being part and parcel of Annexure 'F' to the petition held that since the eligibility occurred within the prescribed time there is no reason to deny the consideration of the case for employment on compassionate ground for the death of his father who died in harness. 18. According to me, eligibility occurred on his death. Such eligibility gives a right to the heirs and legal representative of the family members to apply for the relief. Such application was made within the time by the widow not for her but for her minor son who attained the majority and also made an application which is in the aid of the original application. Therefore, such application by the son, the petitioner No.2, herein cannot be refused on the ground that the same was not made within the prescribed period. 19. Therefore, such application by the son, the petitioner No.2, herein cannot be refused on the ground that the same was not made within the prescribed period. 19. One or two years prescribed period for making an application as prescribed by the authority concerned is good to stop that rain water i.e. to say the persons who are not coming clean hands and trying to take advantage of the situation. But, the same principle cannot be applicable in a case where the grievance is genuine. Therefore, the time period as framed is not to prevent the genuine candidate but to prevent who are not genuine. Therefore, two years period as prescribed is directory, not mandatory one. 20. Now, I have to deal with the situation as to whether delay can only be regarded as ground of refusal in a genuine case? According to me, delay cannot be regarded as a ground of prevention to a genuine candidate because the same is not one way traffic. I want to say that bread earner, when died, naturally a family is falling in a circumstances and delay may be caused on various grounds. Some times on the part of the petitioner some times on the part of the authority but when the genuine case is delayed on account of the statutory authority in giving appointment can it be said to b0 delay on account of the petitioner. Therefore, whether the family is surviving or how they are surviving are coming later on without the service and for the same prayer for service under compassionate ground cannot be refused, can be said to be sacrosanct The real relief is to consider the case on its proper prospective by the authority. In the instant case, the petitioner's relief was considered by the appropriate authority for recommendation of the same was forwarded to the Director of School Education. Therefore, the Director of School Education had no occasion to refuse the same on the fictitious ground that the application is time barred. It is expected that he will apply his mind as to the genuineness of the case as indicated herein specially when repeatedly the other part of the same statutory authority of the Maida District Primary School Council was forwarding the name. 21. It is expected that he will apply his mind as to the genuineness of the case as indicated herein specially when repeatedly the other part of the same statutory authority of the Maida District Primary School Council was forwarding the name. 21. Therefore, in the premises I hold that the impugned order passed by the Director of School Education under Memo No. 753-SC/P dated 18.5.95 as well as Memo No. 1692-SC/E dated 9.11.98 as communicated by the concerned District Primary School Council stand quashed. 22. As consequential effect thereof, Director of School Education (Primary Branch, West Bengal) is directed to accord the approval of appointment of the petitioner as proposed by the Chairman, ad-hoc committee or appropriate authority of the Maida District Primary School Council within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order and the Chairman, Malda District Primary School Council is directed to give appointment of the petitioner No.2 as Primary Teacher within a period of two weeks from the date of receive of such approval from the Director of School Education. 23. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. 24. No order is passed as to cost. 25. Affidavit-of-Service by kept with the record. Since no affidavit has been filed by the contesting respondent, it is recorded that no allegation is admitted for them. Let an urgent xerox certified copy be issued upon the parties within a period of two weeks from, the date of putting requisition.