JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. In re: CAN 8867 of 2017 1. Let the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner in respect of the section 5 application be kept on record. 2. Upon perusing the section 5 application, it appears that there has been a delay of 358 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order dated 16th June, 2016, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 29826 (W) of 2015 (Gautam Dalal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). After receiving the impugned judgment and order dated 16th June, 2016, the Joint Legal Remembrancer engaged a senior Government advocate on 7th September, 2016, to prefer an appeal. In paragraph 6 of the section 5 application, the following statement has been made:- "6. That Mr. Jaharlal Dey, Learned Senior State Advocate have [sic; read, has] not preferred the said appeal. The department further contract [sic; read, contacted] with the learned Legal Remembrancer, West Bengal and request [sic; read, requested] to engaged [sic; read, engage] any other Learned Govt. Advocate for preferring an appeal it is most urgent." 3. Consequently another Government advocate was engaged to prefer the appeal on 5th July, 2017 and ultimately the appeal was filed on 13th July, 2017. As such, we notice that the period of delay of 358 days in preferring the appeal has occurred primarily due to negligence on the part of the Government advocate and also due to negligence and/or sheer callousness on the part of the office of the Legal Remembrancer of the State of West Bengal for not regularly following up with the Government advocate who was initially engaged. 4. Both parties have cited several judgments. On behalf of the applicants, the following judgments have been cited: "(1) (2009) 15 SCC 177 (State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Mohmad Maqbool Sofi & Ors.); (2) (2015) 3 SCC 569 (Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat v. Arumugam (Dead) By Legal Representatives." 5. On behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner, the following judgments have been cited:- "(1) (2012) 3 SCC 563 (Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living Media India Limited & Anr.); (2) (2013) 4 SCC 57 (Union of India & Ors. v. Nripen Sarma)." 6. Each of the judgments cited is an authority for a proposition which has been laid down based on certain facts of that particular case. v. Living Media India Limited & Anr.); (2) (2013) 4 SCC 57 (Union of India & Ors. v. Nripen Sarma)." 6. Each of the judgments cited is an authority for a proposition which has been laid down based on certain facts of that particular case. While adjudicating a section 5 application, the Court must always take a justice-oriented approach. If the Court is convinced that there has been an attempt on the part of the Government officials or public servants to defeat justice by causing delay or there has been negligence or callousness on the part of such Government officials or public servants, in view of larger public interest, the Court should take a lenient view of such situation and condone the delay howsoever huge it may be and have the matter decided on its merit. 7. In the instant case, as stated hereinbefore, the Joint Legal Remembrancer engaged a senior Government advocate to prefer an appeal as far back as on 7th September, 2016. However, that appeal was never made ready which resulted in the engagement of another Government advocate on 5th July, 2017. Consequently, the appeal was made ready and the Memorandum of Appeal was filed on 13th July, 2017. 8. We are of the view that in the facts of the instant case, the concerned authority of the State of West Bengal who was aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 16th June, 2016, was not at all negligent. If there has been any negligence or callousness, it was on the part of the office of the Legal Remembrancer of the State of West Bengal as well as the senior Government advocate who was originally entrusted in filing of the appeal. For negligence of a few, the larger public interest of the State ought not to suffer. 9. If there has been any negligence or callousness, it was on the part of the office of the Legal Remembrancer of the State of West Bengal as well as the senior Government advocate who was originally entrusted in filing of the appeal. For negligence of a few, the larger public interest of the State ought not to suffer. 9. While we allow the section 5 application upon holding that the delay of 358 days in filing of the appeal has been sufficiently explained, we direct the Chief Secretary to the State of West Bengal to cause a thorough enquiry and fix responsibility on the part of the concerned official/officials/employee/employees in the office of the Legal Remembrancer who was/were entrusted with the duty of pursuing the matter of filing of the appeal but did not make even a single correspondence between the date when they handed over the papers to the earlier Government advocate and the time when they had to engage another Government advocate on 5th July, 2017, to file the present appeal. Responsibility shall be fixed and the Chief Secretary of the State of West Bengal shall take steps in order to ensure that this kind of negligence and/or callousness does not recur in future. 10. A copy of this order shall be transmitted forthwith to the office of the Chief Secretary of the State of West Bengal. 11. The instant section 5 application is accordingly disposed of. In re: MAT 1159 of 2017 with CAN 8868 of 2017 12. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. 13. The present appeal has been preferred by the State of West Bengal and others against the judgment and order dated 16th June, 2016, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 29826 (W) of 2015 (Gautam Dalal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). By the said judgment and order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with the following direction:- "I allow this writ application by directing the respondents to grant an out of turn suitable appointment to the petitioner in terms of the above recommendation by 31st March, 2017. All the papers are before this Court. Affidavits were not invited. The allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. All the papers are before this Court. Affidavits were not invited. The allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. This writ application is thus disposed of." 14. The question which arises for consideration in the facts of the instant case is whether a mandatory direction upon the concerned respondents could be issued by the learned Single Judge to suitably appoint the writ petitioner in terms of the recommendation by 31st March, 2017, "out of turn" (emphasis supplied by us). 15. Upon perusal of the records, it is noticed that the respondent/writ petitioner, Goutam Dalal, had originally approached the writ Court sometime in the year 2012 by filing a writ petition, being WP 27607 (W) of 2012, which was disposed of by an order dated 20th December, 2012. The said order contained a direction upon the concerned respondent authority to take immediate steps in accordance with the latest policy of the State Government and to ensure that the proposal for appointment of the petitioner was given effect to, at an early date, in terms of the said policy. Subsequently, the respondent/writ petitioner once again approached the writ Court, this time by filing a writ petition, being WP 25112 (W) of 2014. That writ petition was disposed of on 3rd September, 2014, with the following observation:- "I direct the competent authority to issue letter of appointment to the petitioner when his turn will come. I make it clear that the petitioner shall not be superseded by any person whose name appears after the name of the petitioner in the concerned register. It is further made clear that in the event the petitioner has already been superseded, the respondent authority is directed to issue letter of appointment in respect of the next available vacancy. The writ petition stands disposed of." 16. Consequently, the concerned Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal issued an order dated 23rd April, 2015, relevant portion whereof is quoted hereinbelow:- "Hence I order that an appointment in Group-C post in a suitable vacancy in any GP in Purba Medinipur district will be considered in favour of Sri Goutam Dalal subject to approval of the competent authority in P & RD Department and urgency to fill up the vacancy in exempted category as and when his turn comes. The matter is disposed of accordingly. The matter is disposed of accordingly. The solemn order of Hon'ble High Court is accordingly complied with. Let a copy of this order be served to all concerned including the petitioner." 17. Against this order, the respondent/writ petitioner preferred WP 29826 (W) of 2015 wherefrom the impugned judgment and order emanates. 18. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition with a direction upon the concerned respondent authority to grant an "out of turn" appointment in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner, took into consideration the fact that the concerned Joint Secretary took about four years to endorse the respondent/writ petitioner's recommendation on 23rd April, 2015. 19. The recommendation of the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal dated 23rd April, 2015, is clearly in consonance with the order of the writ Court dated 3rd September, 2014, which was passed in WP 25112 (W) of 2014. However, the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment and order has issued a mandatory direction upon the concerned respondent authority to appoint the respondent/writ petitioner "out of turn" (emphasis supplied by us) even while referring to the recommendation of the concerned Joint Secretary dated 23rd April, 2015. 20. It is well settled that 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. 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. In this context, one may take notice of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. V. Shashank Goswami & Anr., reported in AIR 2012 SC 2294 . 21. Further, in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani (Smt.) v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2008) 11 SCC 384 , the Supreme Court, while examining the scope of employment on compassionate ground, took into consideration a scheme where a dependant of an employee was considered ineligible for the post in a case where the family received terminal/retiral benefits above the ceiling limit. This decision of the Supreme Court was referred to and relied upon by the Supreme Court in its latter decision rendered in Shashank Goswami (supra). 22. The ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court referred above was noticed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of West Bengal & Anr. v. Poly Dutta & Ors. reported in (2017) 2 CLT 299 (HC) : (2017) 3 WBLR (Cal) 516 : 2017 (2) CHN (CAL) 683. 23. In the facts of the instant case, the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal has made it clear in the order dated 23rd April, 2015, that the appointment in Group-C post in a suitable vacancy in any Gram Panchayat in Purba Medinipur district will be considered in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner Goutam Dalal as and when his turn will come. In such a fact situation, it was not open to the learned Single Judge to issue a mandatory direction for an "out of turn" (emphasis supplied by us) appointment in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner on the basis of the recommendation dated 23rd April, 2015, particularly, when the said recommendation was made pursuant to and in conformity with the order dated 3rd September, 2014, passed by a learned Single Judge in the second writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner, being WP 25112 (W) of 2014. 24. 24. For reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order dated 16th June, 2016, passed in WP 29826 (W) of 2015, is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 25. However, we make it clear that setting aside of the impugned judgment and order dated 16th June, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge shall not cause any prejudice to the rights of the respondent/writ petitioner in any manner in respect of the pending recommendation dated 23rd April, 2015, issued by the concerned Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal. 26. The appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of accordingly. 27. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. Mir Dara Sheko, J. : I agree. Disposed off