Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 289 (CAL)

Rahul Mondal v. State of West Bengal

2014-03-27

BISWANATH SOMMADER

body2014
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Sommader, J. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging an order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Panchayats and Rural Development Department. 3. Perusing the impugned order, it appears that the concerned respondent authority has passed it in terms of the directions given by this Court in an earlier writ petition moved by the petitioner, being W.P. No. 18137 (W) of 2012, which was heard and disposed of on 11th July, 2013, by Soumitra Pal, J. with certain directions upon the concerned respondent authority. 4. In the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the died-in-harness category upon the death of his father, who was an Ex-Executive Assistant of Humaipur Gram Panchayat, situated in the district of Murshidabad. He was offered a Group-D post, which was vacant and he accepted his appointment by joining the said post without any demur or protest on 28th December, 2011. He has, thereafter, turned around to contend that he was eligible for being appointed in a Group-C post. He subsequently filed the earlier writ petition, which led to the order dated 11th July, 2013, based on which the impugned order was passed by the Joint Secretary. 5. Perusing the impugned order, it appears that the same is supported with cogent reasons. It has been observed, inter-alia, by the Joint Secretary that considering the extant policy of the Panchayats and Rural Development Department at the material point of time of issuance of the sanction order for appointment in favour of the petitioner that any fresh appointment on compassionate ground shall be made in Group-D post only, irrespective of educational qualification, the petitioner's prayer could not be considered favourably and hence rejected. 6. A question that arises for consideration is whether in such a factual scenario, the writ petitioner could have at all approached this Court invoking its high prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In order to find an answer, it may be relevant to quote the Supreme Court's observation rendered in the case of Union of India & Another v. Shashank Goswami and Another, reported in AIR 2012 SC 2294 : (2012) 11 SCC 307 . 7. In order to find an answer, it may be relevant to quote the Supreme Court's observation rendered in the case of Union of India & Another v. Shashank Goswami and Another, reported in AIR 2012 SC 2294 : (2012) 11 SCC 307 . "An applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular group/class of post as a matter of right. Appointment on compassionate ground too, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that a claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. As a rule, public appointments should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment, but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement, upon taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family." 8. In I.G. (KARMIK) and Others v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 162 , the Supreme Court has made the following observation in a fact situation similar to the instant case:- "Furthermore, the respondent accepted the said post without any demur whatsoever. He, therefore, upon obtaining appointment in a lower post could not have been permitted to turn round and contend that he was entitled for a higher post although not eligible therefor." 9. It may not be out of context to observe at this juncture that a person who has not secured employment on the strength of his/her merit, but on the basis of a benevolent policy of the State Government - which indulges in giving such types of appointment on compassionate ground - cannot be permitted to extract from the State anything further than what he/she has already obtained from the State, as a benefit. There cannot be any manner of doubt whatsoever that the writ petitioner is a beneficiary of the State's benevolent policy. Upon obtaining benefit of an appointment on compassionate ground, he now wants more. This is simply impermissible and for reasons stated above, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost assessed at 50 G.Ms., which shall paid by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Calcutta, so that a deserving litigant, who is economically challenged, can get some beneficial opportunity to approach this Court. Writ petition is dismissed.