JUDGMENT 1. The writ petitioner was a head teacher of Chandabila Primary School within District Midnapore. He was declared unfit by the Medical Board Constituted in terms of Government Circular only four days before the age of superannuation. He prayed for appointment of his son in 1994 but the Medical Report was submitted on 23.2.96, the petitioner retired on 28.2.1996. The prayer for appointment of his ward/son on compassionate ground was rejected by the authorities. He filed the writ application which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 29th September, 1997 directing the Secretary, Education Department to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and by passing a reasoned order. The Secretary, Education Department by his order dated 19.11.1997, held:- "In terms of Rule 14(b) framed under the Primary Education Act, 1973 and as notified vide Notification No. 768 Edn. (p) dated 22.11 91, the case of appointment of the ward of a disabled teacher cannot be entertained after 58 years of age of the disabled incumbent. " 2. Impugning this order of the Secretary, Education Department, the present writ application has been filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is a result of misapplication of the notification relied upon by the Secretary, Education Department and submits that the circular of the Government which is applicable to this case has been annexed to this writ application as Annexure' F' wherein it has been stated in Paragraph 3 that when a teacher who dies or become physically incapacitated on the date of superannuation, the question of appointment of his ward/son on compassionated ground will not be considered. According to learned Counsel, the writ petitioner did not become incapacitated on the date of retirement but was found incapacitated 4/5 days before retirement. So under the circular, the Secretary. Education Department ought to have recommended appointment of his ward/son. 3. It is not disputed that the Rule 14(b) of the Recruitment and Writ Rules framed under Notification No. 768 Edn. So under the circular, the Secretary. Education Department ought to have recommended appointment of his ward/son. 3. It is not disputed that the Rule 14(b) of the Recruitment and Writ Rules framed under Notification No. 768 Edn. (P) dated 22.11.91 in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 106 of the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 (West Bengal Act, XLIII of 1973) makes it clear in Paragraph (b) of Rule 14 by providing as follows :- "When a primary teacher is declared permanently incapacitated by the competent Medical Board set up according to the procedure laid down in the Government order and he has been allowed to retire at least two years before he ,attains the age of superannuation and his family is in extreme economic hardship after such retirement (I) the unemployed wife, or (2) the unemployed son, or (3) the unemployed unmarried daughter, of the incapacitated and prematurely retired primary teacher possessing the required as laid down in sub-rules (a) and (b) of Rule 6. Educational qualifications and found eligible to teach, may make within two years from the date of such retirement, a prayer in writing in the Counsel for appointment as primary teacher on compassionate ground." 4. The petitioner' last attended the school on 31.12.94 (Annexure 'H') and he was granted the leave without pay from 1.1.95 to 29.6.96. The first report of the Medical Board constituted in accordance with the rules is dated "sometime in December 199, (Annexure 'C', the date not legible). He was advised to continue the treatment and reappear before the Board with the report of the investigation. The final report of the Board about his being permanently incapacitated is dated 23.2.96. His date of retirement falls due on 28.2.96. The report of Sabbapati on Panchayat Samity was called for on 184.95 for ascertaining the genuineness of the claim. It can be easily presumed that his claim for employment of his ward on compassionate ground was filed before 1.1.95. 5. The Chairman of the ad hoc committee of Midnapore District Primary School Council by its Circular dated 1.3.94 (Annexure 'F') reiterated the procedures for appointment on compassionate ground by referring to three circulars which are operating in the field at the time when the application of the petitioner was pending. The other relevant circular which has been relied upon by the Secretary has been mentioned m his report. The other relevant circular which has been relied upon by the Secretary has been mentioned m his report. The terms of the circulars are stated below : (i) Government Order No. III Edn. (P) dated 12.2.92 whereby if a teacher dies or becomes medically incapacitated on the date of retirement his ward would not be entitled to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground; (ii) Government Order No. 731 Edn. (P) dated 30.10.91 whereby an application of the teacher for appointment of his ward on compassionate ground will not of considered if he has not been examined by Medical Board before completion of 60 years; (iii) Government Order No. 768 Edn. (P) dated 22.11.91 (relied upon by the Secretary) whereby the claim of appointment of the ward of a disabled teacher will not be entertained after 58 years of age of the nisabled incumbent. 6. Evidently, the Secretary acted in terms of Government circular mentioned above in item No.3 and it, therefore, might appear that such action cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercising 'writ jurisdiction. A deoper prebe into the matter will, however, reveal that the learned Secretary failed to consider the matter in proper perspective. All the three circulars mentioned above were issued one after another in quick succession without being superseded by the later one. The last Circular No. III Edn.. (P) dated 12.2.92 disentitles a teacher's claim for appointment on a compassionate ground provided he retires on the ground of medical disablement on the date of superannuation on attaining 60 years of age despite the fact that earlier circular dated 22.11.91 relied upon by the Secretary disentitles a teacher to prefer a claim for compassionate 3ppointment of his ward after attainment of 58 years. If the petitioner is disentitled to prefer such a claim in 1995 when he was already attained 58 years of age, it is not necessary at al\ to declare such disentitlement Oi1 the date of retirement. 7. It is to be noted that the process of consideration of the petition relating to appointment on compassionate ground was initiated firstly by directing to appear before Medical Board and then by making enquiry from Sabhapati of Panchayat Samity regarding genuineness of the claim. When both the reports were in favour of the petitioner then the Secretary declared the petitioner disqualified for making such application. When both the reports were in favour of the petitioner then the Secretary declared the petitioner disqualified for making such application. What was the necessity of such useless exercise when the petitioner was disqualified to make such application very beginning? Such exercise by the Medical Board as also by Sabhapati in pursuance of the directions of the authorities only had the effect keeping the expectation on the petitioner alive. The question therefore arises whether a statutory authority can act upon any of the three contradictory circulars at different stages according to its convenience or desire and ultimately deprive the petitioner of the benefit of a social welfare legislation by using a disabling circular after exhausting the process of Secretary which recommends the petitioners' claim. 8. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner underwent a protracted treatment which exhausted all medical leaves to his credit and had to go on leave without pay for more than one year. During illness he made the claim for appointment of his ward as he was rendered permanently disabled on account of bronchial asthma. The claim of the petitioner that he has been permanently disabled due to incurable disease and that his family in penury have been verified by Medical Board as well as by Sabhapati. Such verification has been made on the basis of first two circulars mentioned above. It cannot be disputed that he was found permanently disabled by Medical Board before the date of his retirement and he is thus entitled to have his case considered favourably in terms of circular Edn. (P) dated 12.292. The learned Secretary did not consider the latest circular dated 12.2.92 nor clarified the confusion created by the three circulars operating at a time. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon an unreported decision of a Single Judge of this Court in (I) Prabir Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors., W. P. No. 504 of 2000. passed on April 5, 2000 whereby His Lordship Barin Ghosh, J., had occasion to consider the case whereby the petitioner was due to retire on 1.1.91 and he was found permanently disabled and incapacitated to continue the service by the Medical Board on 14.7.97. The petitioner's prayer for appointment' of his ward on compassionate ground was turned down on the ground that he was not declared medically unfit before he attained 58 years of age. The petitioner's prayer for appointment' of his ward on compassionate ground was turned down on the ground that he was not declared medically unfit before he attained 58 years of age. His Lordship allowed the prayer by holding as follows :- "The logical conclusion, therefore, would be that if the petitioner had been tested on 8th July, 1996, the result would have been the same as was found on 14th February, 1997. Because the Officers of the State who have been mentioned in the above rules did not make it convenient to test the petitioner No.2 within a reasonable time from the date when such a request had been made can it be said that the beneficial right granted in favour of the petitioners by the said rules is lest? I do not think so. 10. For the latches on the part of the Government Officers of beneficial interest of a citizen granted by law cannot be denuded. If that is permitted then the Government Officers would be entitled to rule as feudal Lords instead of servant to the democratic stand and its people. 11. In the circumstances, for all practical purposes, it should be deemed that the petitioner was declared permanently incapacitated by the competent Medical Board set up for that purpose on the date, the petitioner had applied and he had been allowed to retire on 31st December, 1996. 12. In (2) Ramesh Chandra Roy v. Union of India & Ors., 1999 (2) Cal LJ 1, this Court held :- "It is now well-settled principle of law that a statutory authority must perform his statutory duties. If a statutory authority fails and/ or neglects to perform his statutory duties, the writ Court has ample jurisdiction to issue a fit of mandamus directing him to exercise his statutory functions. The High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not usurp jurisdiction of the statutory authority, but in such a case would remit the matter back to it." 13. The impugned order of the Secretary is, therefore, set aside: 14. As none appeared on behalf of the State nor contested the application by filing opposition, I direct the Secretary, Education Department to consider the petitioners' case afresh in the light of the discussion made in the body of the judgment within two months from the date of communication of this order. 15. As none appeared on behalf of the State nor contested the application by filing opposition, I direct the Secretary, Education Department to consider the petitioners' case afresh in the light of the discussion made in the body of the judgment within two months from the date of communication of this order. 15. The petitioners are directed to serve xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) upon the Secretary, School Education Department within 15 days from this date. The writ petition is thus disposed of. Later-After pronouncement of judgment, the Primary School Council, respondent No. 2 files affidavit-in-opposition, which may be kept on record. S. K.G.