Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 230 (CAL)

Harinarayan Kewat v. State of West Bengal

2014-03-18

NISHITA MHATRE, TAPASH MOOKHERJEE

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. The Petitioner has challenged the decision of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1876 of 2007 before this Court. The order was passed on 17th December, 2009 dismissing the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 2. There is no dispute that the Petitioners father worked as a Police Constable with the Government of West Bengal. He died in harness on 18th December, 1996. The Petitioner was then a minor as the date of birth recorded in his application for compassionate appointment is 20th December, 1979. He applied for being appointed on compassionate grounds in January, 1997. In April, 1997 he received a call letter for recruitment as a Constable with the Bengal Police in Purulia District. The Petitioner was declared underage and unfit because he did not have the necessary physical attributes. An application was submitted by the Petitioner on 8th of November, 1999 for waiving the deficiency in the physical measurements. By an order dated 10th of January, 2007, the Petitioner was intimated that the deficiency in his physical measurements was condoned on compassionate grounds under the exempted category. He was then directed to appear before the Recruitment Committee. The Petitioner was unable to complete the requisite physical efficiency test within the specified time. The Petitioner challenged the inaction on the part of the Respondents before the Tribunal by preferring the aforesaid Original Application. 3. The Tribunal dismissed the application on 17th December, 2009 by concluding that the Petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands. The Tribunal also observed that the alleged immediate need of financial assistance could not be said to exist after a lapse of more than thirteen years. 4. The Petitioner, it appears, applied thereafter to be absorbed as a Group D staff with the Police force, without disclosing his earlier application and the result of his test before the Committee. It appears that a letter was issued on 25th of November, 2011 calling upon him to submit his willingness to work in any division in the Group D post. 5. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that because the Respondents had issued the aforesaid letter calling upon him to exercise his willingness, he is entitled to be considered in the Group D post. 5. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that because the Respondents had issued the aforesaid letter calling upon him to exercise his willingness, he is entitled to be considered in the Group D post. It was submitted at the Bar that no option was given to the Petitioner to either be recruited as a Police Constable or for appointment as a Group D staff. Therefore, the Petitioners lack of qualifications for recruitment as a Constable should not bar him from being considered as a candidate for the Group D post. 6. The order denying him the post of constable has not been challenged by the Petitioner at all before the Tribunal. All that was challenged was that there was no communication from the Respondents in respect of his application for appointment. The Petitioner did not disclose that he had already appeared for the recruitment as a Constable in the Bengal Police and that he had failed. He had also not disclosed that he requested the Respondents that since he had not completed the physical efficiency test in accordance with the requisite criteria, he was willing to be employed in a Group D post. 7. In our opinion, the Petitioner has no right to employment. It is well-settled that compassionate appointment is not to be a channel of recruitment and it is only in exceptional circumstances that such employment can be offered to a person. Moreover, when the Petitioner has failed in his attempt to be employed as a Constable, it is not possible for us to direct the Respondents to consider him in a Group D post. The Petitioner chose to offer himself for employment as a Constable by appearing for the test, knowing fully well that he was both underage and lacked the physical attributes. 8. In our opinion, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. 9. The Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 10. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.