JUDGMENT : Ashim Kumar Roy, J. The writ petitioner is the widow of one approved Assistant Teacher of Upendra Narayan Smriti Primary School, Rampurhat, Birbhum. After the death of her husband in April, 1997, the writ petitioner applied to the appropriate authority for enlistment of her name for compassionate appointment under the "dying-in-harness" category within the prescribed period. The respondent authority allowed such prayer and her name was enlisted for consideration of her appointment under the "dying-in-harness" category. She was also received calls, twice for interviews in different schools and she availed such opportunity but failed to succeed. Subsequently, she applied to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Rampurhat, the respondent no. 3 for enlistment of the name of her son for compassionate appointment surrendering her claim on the ground, due to her illness she may not be fit for appointment and by that time, her son has become eligible for consideration. 2. The District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Rampurhat, Birbhum, by the impugned order being Annexure P-9 to the writ petition, rejected her such prayer. Hence, this writ application. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that according to the guidelines prescribed for appointment on compassionate ground, either the widow or dependent unemployed son or dependent unemployed unmarried daughter is eligible for consideration for compassionate appointment. It is urged that when the widow due to her illness surrendered her right and requested the respondent authorities for consideration of the case of his son, who is otherwise eligible, the respondent authorities have no valid reason to decline such prayer. 4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel of the writ petitioner relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Syed Iftikar Ali v. State of West Bengal reported in (2011)2 CHN (CAL) 17, more particularly, on paragraph 7 of the said decision. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State vehemently opposed this writ application and submitted that there is nothing wrong in the order impugned and submitted that the factual background of the case referred from the side of the writ petitioner and the case in hand are completely different. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State vehemently opposed this writ application and submitted that there is nothing wrong in the order impugned and submitted that the factual background of the case referred from the side of the writ petitioner and the case in hand are completely different. In the aforesaid case, relied upon from the side of the writ petitioner, the widow of the deceased teacher applied for compassionate appointment within the prescribed period and pending disposal of the said application by the concerned authority, she surrendered her claim in favour of her son due to her ill health but in the case at hand, already the petitioners application for enlistment of her name in "dying-in-harness" category has been allowed and she was given more than one opportunity for interview and she availed both the opportunities but failed to succeed and having failed to succeed, she has now approached the concerned District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Rampurhat, Birbhum to consider the case of her son instead of her. He submitted that the facts of both the cases are altogether different and as the rule never permitted, the prayer of the writ petitioner was very rightly rejected by the concerned authority. He then drew the attention of this court to the guidelines for recruitment of non-teaching staff in non-Government Aided Secondary School and other Schools prescribed under a memo dated 1 November, 1999 and submitted that in terms of Clause 2(c) only one member of deceased family shall be eligible for appointment subject to the fulfillment of other conditions. He then added that the case of the writ petitioner has been duly considered by the concerned authority and she was given reasonable opportunity but she failed to succeed, therefore, question of substituting her son in her place at this stage does not at all arise. He submitted that this writ application has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Considered their respective submissions and also the decisions relied upon by them. 7. I find sufficient force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the State. He submitted that this writ application has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Considered their respective submissions and also the decisions relied upon by them. 7. I find sufficient force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the State. He very rightly pointed out that the case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner namely, the case of Syed Iftikar Ali v. State of West Bengal (Supra) has no manner of application in the background facts of the present case. While in the case referred by the writ petitioner, before the concerned authority took a decision for enlistment of her name in the "dying-in-harness" category, the widow surrendered her claim in favour of her son due to her illness but in the present case, the writ petitioner after having got her name listed for compassionate appointment in the "dying-in-harness" category and after she being sponsored for interview at least twice and having availed such opportunity and after she failed to succeed, then only approached the respondent authority for enlistment of her son in the "dying-in-harness" category, relinquishing her claim. 8. It is quite profitable to note that the Division Bench in the case of Syed Iftikar Ali v. State of West Bengal (supra) resolved the issue relying on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar and others (supra) and subsequently relying on the decision of Syed Iftikar Ali v. State of West Bengal (Supra), a co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Dipak Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2012)3 WBLR (Cal) 886, took an identical view. But in all those cases, before the enlistment of the name of the widows, for consideration of their appointment in "dying-in-harness" category, they relinquished their claims in favour of their sons. 9. However, the case of the writ petitioner stands on different footing as observed herein above. 10. Having regard to above, I find no merit in this application and the same stands dismissed and disposed. 11. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties within a week from the date of making such application. Petition dismissed.