JUDGMENT : Re: C.A.N. 3955 of 2015. This application has been filed in connection with the appeal preferred from the judgment and order dated 9th March, 2015 whereby a learned Judge of this Court finally disposed of the writ petition by directing the Chairman, Birbhum District Primary School Council to recommend the case of the respondent/writ petitioner no.2 for appointment on compassionate ground and send such recommendation to the Commissioner of School Education for necessary approval. 2. The claim of the respondents/writ petitioner no. 2 for compassionate appointment was earlier dealt with by this Court on several occasions and the name of the respondent/writ petitioner no. 2 was registered in the record maintained for granting employment on compassionate ground. Unfortunately, till date the appointment was not given to the said respondent/writ petitioner no. 2. 3. Going through the records we find that the father of the respondent/writ petitioner no. 2 was a teacher in a secondary school who died-in-harness. The claim of the respondent/writ petitioner no. 2 for compassionate appointment was thereafter taken up for consideration by the concerned authority and it was never held by any authority that the said respondent/writ petitioner no. 2 was not entitled to claim employment on compassionate ground although till date no appointment has been given to the respondent/writ petitioner no. 2 on compassionate ground. 4. Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate of the appellants submits that the Chairman, District Primary School Council, Birbhum is not competent under the Rules to consider the claim of the respondent/writ petitioner no. 2 for employment on compassionate ground. 5. Mr. Bari, learned advocate representing the respondent/writ petitioner no. 2 submits that in view of the Government Circular being G.O. 457-Edn (P) dated 12th October, 1987 and the subsequent Circular being Memo No. 898-SE (Pry) dated 22nd August, 2005, the claim of the respondent/writ petitioner no. 2 for employment as primary school teacher on compassionate ground should have been considered and allowed by the authorities concerned. 6. Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate of the appellants further submits that the circular dated 12th October, 1987 has no manner of application after the new Rules of 1981 came into existence. 7. 2 for employment as primary school teacher on compassionate ground should have been considered and allowed by the authorities concerned. 6. Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate of the appellants further submits that the circular dated 12th October, 1987 has no manner of application after the new Rules of 1981 came into existence. 7. We, however, find that by the subsequent circular dated 22nd August, 2005 the School Education Department, Government of West Bengal specifically made it clear that the Government order and circular being G.O. 457-Edn (P) dated 12th October, 1987 will remain operative until further orders along with several other circulars mentioned in the said circular dated 22.8.2005. 8. Furthermore, from the impugned judgment and order under appeal, we find that the learned senior counsel representing the State respondents specifically submitted before the learned Single Judge that the Government is still following the aforesaid circulars and Government orders. 9. We also fail to understand why the Birbhum District Primary School Council is now refusing to follow the earlier two circulars issued in the year 1987 and subsequently in the year 2005 although the State Government and the other District Primary School Councils are following those circulars while entertaining the claim of the candidates for employment on compassionate ground. 10. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, while deciding the issues raised in the writ petition has rightly held that the respondent/writ petitioner no. 2 should be treated under the exceptional category in view of the circulars issued earlier by the Government of West Bengal. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly held that the Chairman, Birbhum District Primary School Council made a serious mistake by not appreciating the fact that the respondent/writ petitioner no. 2 should be treated under the exceptional category. 11. The appellant no.2 was directed by the learned Single Judge to recommend the case of the respondent/writ petitioner no. 2 for employment on compassionate ground and place the same before the Commissioner of School Education so that ultimate decision can be taken by the superior authority of the School Education Department namely, the Commissioner, School Education Department regarding grant of necessary approval to the said recommendation. The appellants herein also cannot suffer any prejudice by recommending the name of the respondent/writ petitioner no. The appellants herein also cannot suffer any prejudice by recommending the name of the respondent/writ petitioner no. 2 before the Commissioner, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal since ultimate decision regarding approval of the said recommendation will be taken by the superior authority of the School Education Department, Government of West Bengal and not by the appellant Council. 12. It may also be on record that the Government of West Bengal did not challenge the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge by preferring any appeal although Mr. L.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State respondents specifically submits that the earlier two circulars cannot remain operative today after enactment of the new act and rules which we do not accept. 13. It is not in dispute that the State Government has not yet withdrawn the aforesaid circulars and on the contrary the State Government is following the said circulars in case of other candidates. We cannot allow any discriminatory treatment in respect of the respondent/writ petitioner no. 2 herein. 14. For the reasons discussed herein above, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly quashed the order passed by the Chairman, District Primary School Council, Birbhum so that the claim of the respondent/writ petitioner no. 2 for employment on compassionate ground is not frustrated in an illegal manner. 15. We do not find any error and/or infirmity in the impugned decision of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we affirm the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge and dispose of both the application as well as the appeal upon treating the said appeal as on days list. In the facts of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.