PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT (since deceased) was a Head-teacher of Krishnanagar Primary School in the District of Nadia. On the death of the said sole appellant, his son Shri Bibek Mondal was substituted as appellant. ( 2 ) THE original appellant/writ petitioner, Shri Kulesh Chandra Mondal (since deceased) submitted an application before the respondent Council on 3rd March, 1997 for being declared to be permanently disabled/incapacitated for life before attaining the age of 58 years. Inspite of submission of the said application, initially no medical board was constituted in order to examine the said Shri Kulesh Chandra Mondal (since deceased) and subsequently pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 3rd October, 1997, medical board examined the said Shri Kulesh Chandra Mondal (since deceased) and declared him as permanently disabled on 10th december, 1997. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the then Chairman, Ad hoc Committee, Malda District primary School Council by a written communication dated 26th December, 1997 asked the Sub-Inspector of schools concerned not to send the proposal of the said Shri Kulesh Chandra Mondal (since deceased) for appointment of his son since the said teacher was declared permanently disabled/ incapacitated beyond 58 years of age. The relevant portion from the said letter of the Chairman, Ad-hoc Committee, Malda District Primary School council dated 26th December, 1997 is set out hereunder : . Names of the teachers and date on which Date of No. schools previously they ? belonged to 1. Kulesh Chandra Mondal , declared disabled superannuation 10. 12. 1997 30. 4. 1999 ex-H. T . , Krishnanagar Pry. School, P. O. : Niamatpur , Dist. Malda 2. Badiruddin Ahmed, ex-A. T. , -do- 19. 7. 2000 Pirojabad Pry. School, P. O. Singia , Dist. Malda Proposal for appointment of the Ward of the teacher at. No. 2 may be sent as early as possible. Proposal for appointment of ward of the teacher at. no. 1 need not be sent since it cannot be considered as per Govt. Notification no. 867-Edn ( P) dated 22. 11. 91 as the teacher has been declared permanently incapacitated beyond 58 years of his age. Sd /- Chairman, Ad-hoc Committee, Malda , DPSC memo No. 5003 (2)/1 (6) Dated, Malda , December 26, 1997. no. 1 need not be sent since it cannot be considered as per Govt. Notification no. 867-Edn ( P) dated 22. 11. 91 as the teacher has been declared permanently incapacitated beyond 58 years of his age. Sd /- Chairman, Ad-hoc Committee, Malda , DPSC memo No. 5003 (2)/1 (6) Dated, Malda , December 26, 1997. ( 4 ) CHALLENGING the said decision of the Malda District Primary School council, said Shri Kulesh Chandra Mondal (since deceased) filed a writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge as according to the said learned Single Judge, no prima facie case has been made out in the petition. The specific finding of the learned Single judge as recorded in the order under appeal dated 17th May, 1999 is quoted hereunder : "the writ application is dismissed because I am of the view that no prima facie case has been made out in the petition to entertain the application. " ( 5 ) CHALLENGING the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge, present appeal has been preferred. ( 6 ) MR. Bari, the learned Counsel of the appellant submits that the application for being declared to be permanently disabled/incapacitated was submitted by the writ petitioner before attaining the age of 58 years and the respondent authorities failed to constitute a medical board in order to examine the health of the said writ petitioner within a reasonable time. The learned Counsel of the appellant/writ petitioner further submits that the medical board was constituted pursuant to the subsequent direction of this hon'ble Court and the said medical board admittedly declared the appellant/writ petitioner, Shri Kulesh Chandra Mondal (since deceased) as permanently disabled on 10th December, 1997. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel of the appellant/writ petitioner that the appellant herein cannot suffer prejudice for the laches and/or lapses on the part of the respondent authorities. ( 7 ) REFERRING to an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Anil Chandra Majhi v. State of West Bengal, (F. M. A. No. 178 of 1999), learned Counsel of the appellant submits that it was not impossible for the respondent authorities to dispose of the application of the writ petitioner before attaining the age of 58 years. Mr. Mr. Ekramul Bari, learned Counsel of the appellant submits that the son of the deceased appellant cannot be deprived of the benefit of compassionate appointment on the ground of delay in declaring the teacher concerned as permanently incapacitated. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel of the respondent Council, however, submits that the concerned teacher, namely, the deceased appellant did not submit any evidence before the authority concerned for declaring the said teacher as permanently disabled. Mr. Anjan Chakraborty, learned Counsel of the council further submits that the deceased teacher is not entitled to request the respondent authorities for employment of his son on compassionate ground under Rule 14 (b) of the Recruitment Rules as there was no evidence to show that the said teacher was permanently incapacitated for further service from the date of submission of his application for pre-mature retirement on medical ground. Mr. Chakraborty also submits that the date of birth of the writ petitioner has been mentioned in the writ petition as 1st day March, 1939 and the application for being declared to be permanently disabled has been submitted by the concerned teacher on 3rd March, 1997 and, therefore, the said application cannot be considered on the ground that the same was filed after attaining the age of 58 years. ( 9 ) ON examination of the records we find that the date of birth of the teacher concerned was specifically mentioned in the application submitted before the concerned authority as 1st May, 1939 and the date of super-annuation was also mentioned as 30th April, 1999. In the impugned order dated 26th December, 1997, respondent Chairman, Ad-hoc Committee, malda District Primary School Council also mentioned the date of super-annuation of the writ petitioner-teacher Shri Kulesh Chandra mondal (since deceased) as 30th April, 1999. When the date of super-annuation is undisputed as 30th April, 1999, the date of birth of the teacher concerned must be 1st May, 1939 and Mr. Bari has rightly submitted before this Court that by mistake in the writ petitioner, date of birth of the teacher concerned was typed as 1st March, 1939 instead of 1st May, 1939. When the date of super-annuation is undisputed as 30th April, 1999, the date of birth of the teacher concerned must be 1st May, 1939 and Mr. Bari has rightly submitted before this Court that by mistake in the writ petitioner, date of birth of the teacher concerned was typed as 1st March, 1939 instead of 1st May, 1939. ( 10 ) IN any event, when the date of super-annuation has been undisputedly accepted by both the parties as 30th April, 1999, the date of birth of the teacher concerned has to be 1st May, 1939 and the same has been specifically mentioned in the application submitted by the appellant before the authority concerned. The respondent-Malda District Primary school Council refused to send the proposal for appointment of the ward of the teacher concerned, namely, Shri Kulesh Chandra Mondal (since deceased) on the ground that such proposal cannot be considered as per government Notification No. 867-Edn (P) dated 22nd November, 1991 as the concerned teacher has been declared permanently incapacitated beyond 58 years of age. The said respondent Council did not assign any other reason while refusing the claim of the concerned teacher for giving appointment to his son on compassionate ground. ( 11 ) THE teacher concerned namely, the deceased appellant/writ petitioner retired before attaining the age of superannuation since the duly constituted medical board declared the said teacher permanently incapacitated and unfit to render further duty. It is not in dispute that the concerned teacher submitted an application for declaring him to be permanently disabled/incapacitated on 3rd March, 1997 and the said teacher attained the age of 58 years of age on 30th April, 1997. Therefore, almost within a period of two months, the concerned respondents could have examined the concerned teacher in order to ascertain whether the said teacher could be declared permanently disabled. Ultimately, the medical board declared the said teacher as permanently disabled only few months after attaining the age of 58 years for which the appellant could not be held responsible. ( 12 ) THE appellant claimed himself permanently disabled for rendering further service and submitted an application well-in-advance with necessary particulars. It was the duty of the concerned respondents to constitute a medical board in order to ascertain the health condition of the teacher concerned. ( 12 ) THE appellant claimed himself permanently disabled for rendering further service and submitted an application well-in-advance with necessary particulars. It was the duty of the concerned respondents to constitute a medical board in order to ascertain the health condition of the teacher concerned. By deliberately causing delay, respondent authorities cannot deprive the rightful and legitimate claim of a teacher who after being declared as permanently disabled/incapacitated can demand employment for his son/daughter. ( 13 ) IN the present case, teacher concerned, in the prescribed application specifically mentioned that his son, Shri Bibek Mondal should be provided with employment on compassionate ground. Provisions have been made for compassionate appointment in order to ensure social justice to the helpless family of a poor teacher and therefore, right to avail benefit for compassionate appointment available to a teacher cannot be denied by wilful laches and/or lapses of the respondent authorities herein. ( 14 ) WHILE arguing the case, learned Counsel of the respondents although submitted that there was no evidence to show that the teacher concerned was permanently incapacitated for further service on the date of submission of the application for premature retirement on medical ground and necessary records in his regard were also not submitted along with the application by the concerned teacher but we are not at all impressed by the aforesaid submission since the said ground has not been mentioned by the chairman, Ad-hoc Committee, Malda District Primary School Council in the impugned order dated 26th December, 1997 while directing the said sub-Inspector of Schools concerned for not sending the proposal for appointment of the ward of teacher concerned. Furthermore, on the very date of submission of the application, it cannot be established that the teacher concerned was permanently disabled as a medical board has to be constituted for the said purpose only after submission of the application by the concerned teacher in prescribed proforma. ( 15 ) THE medical board has to examine the teacher concerned in order to express an opinion regarding permanent disability of the teacher concerned. Such declaration on permanent disability by the medical board concerned has to be made in respect of a teacher before attainment of 58 years of age. ( 15 ) THE medical board has to examine the teacher concerned in order to express an opinion regarding permanent disability of the teacher concerned. Such declaration on permanent disability by the medical board concerned has to be made in respect of a teacher before attainment of 58 years of age. The concerned respondent, however, on receiving application from the teacher concerned for being declared to be permanently disabled must act with reasonable promptness so that the duly constituted medical board can get an opportunity to examine the teacher concerned and express its opinion with regard to the claim of the said teacher regarding claim of the permanent disability before attainment of 58 years of age. ( 16 ) IN the present case, due to the laches and/or lapses on the part of the concerned respondents, medical board was not constituted within a reasonable time after submission of the application by the teacher concerned and therefore, the said medical board could not declare the teacher concerned permanently disabled before attaining the age of 58 years although the application was filed by the teacher concerned almost two months before attaining the age of 58 years. ( 17 ) WE are of the view that the respondent authority being guilty of delay and latches cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own latches in denying the rightful and legitimate claim of the appellant. ( 18 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, when the teacher concerned was admittedly declared permanently disabled on the basis of an application filed by the said teacher before attaining the age of 58 years, we are of the opinion that the said deceased teacher herein has duly complied with the conditions laid down for providing compassionate appointment to the ward of the said teacher. In our opinion, the respondent-Malda District Primary school Council wrongfully and erroneously directed the said Sub-Inspector of Schools concerned for not sending the proposal for appointment of the ward of the teacher concerned namely, Shri Kulesh Chandra Mondal (since deceased) even though the said teacher was declared permanently disabled on the basis of an application submitted before attaining the age of 58 years. ( 19 ) THE unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Chandra Majhi (supra) cited by the learned Counsel of the appellant herein is very much applicable in the facts of the present case and we also follow the said decision while granting relief to the appellant/writ petitioner herein. ( 20 ) FOR the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the leaned Single Judge cannot be sustained and the same is, therefore, set aside. ( 21 ) THE respondent authorities are directed to consider the proposal for appointment of the ward of the teacher concerned namely, Shri Bibek mondal without any further delay but positively within a period of 6 weeks from the date of communication of this order upon observing the necessary formalities in accordance with law. ( 22 ) THIS appeal thus stands allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. .