JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. Re: CAN No. 10082 of 2017 1. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the application for condonation of delay, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant/ appellant to explain the delay in filing of the appeal. As such, the delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay, being CAN No. 10082 of 2017, is accordingly allowed. MAT No. 1627 of 2017 with CAN No. 9388 of 2017 2. 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. 3. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 27th June, 2016, passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 26418 (W) of 2014, Sri Bimal Munda vs. State of West Bengal and Others. 4. The appellants before us are the State and its other authorities. 5. Even a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the learned Single Judge - on a writ petition taken out by Bimal Munda - has issued a mandatory direction for his appointment on compassionate ground. For convenience, the impugned judgment and order is setout in its entirety herein-below: “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I direct the Joint Secretary to the Government of west Bengal, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development to immediately appoint the petitioner in a suitable post, irrespective of any waiting list as per the recommendation of the Joint director of Panchayats and Rural Development, West Bengal dated 10th May, 2012 within three months of communication of this order. I have ordered appointment and not consideration because this recommendation was made in 2011. The Joint Secretary had enough time to reject the application which he has not done so. I have also ordered appointment irrespective of any waiting list because when this recommendation is pending for about four years, there is no question of waiting further. 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. The writ application is thus disposed of.” 6. 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. Affidavits were not invited. The allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. The writ application is thus disposed of.” 6. 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. 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 and Another vs. Shashank Goswami and Another, AIR 2012 SC 2294 . 7. In Smt. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (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 and Another (supra). 8. This decision of the Supreme Court was referred to and relied upon by the Supreme Court in its latter decision rendered in Shashank Goswami and Another (supra). 8. It is, therefore, clear from the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments referred above that in case of compassionate ground, such claim cannot be strictly upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India and can only be considered by authority when a scheme for such compassionate appointment is in force. 9. In the facts of the instant case, it is evident that the learned Single Judge has issued a mandatory direction upon the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development to “immediately appoint” the writ petitioner in a suitable post, irrespective of any waiting list as per the recommendation of the Joint Director of Panchayats and Rural Development, West Bengal dated 10th May, 2012, with a certain timeframe. The only reason for issuance of such mandatory direction appears to be that the writ petitioner’s recommendation was pending for about four years. The learned Single Judge observed that “there is no question of waiting further.” 10. In a fact situation similar to the instant case, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of the State of West Bengal and Others vs. Goutam Dalal, MAT No. 1159 of 2017 with CAN No. 8867 of 2017 and CAN 8868 of 2017 on 20th September, 2017, set aside a similar order passed by the learned Single Judge. While doing so, the Division Bench noticed the two judgments rendered by the Supreme Court as referred above. The Division Bench also took notice of another judgment of this Court rendered in the case of State of West Bengal and Another vs. Poly Dutta and Others, (2017) 3 WBLR (Cal) 516 : 2017 (2) CHN (Cal) 683. In Poly Dutta’s case also, the two judgments of the Supreme Court referred above were taken into consideration. 11. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in any manner whatsoever and is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. The writ petition, being W.P. No. 26418 (W) of 2014, consequently stands dismissed. 12. The appeal and the application for stay are accordingly allowed. 13. 11. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in any manner whatsoever and is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. The writ petition, being W.P. No. 26418 (W) of 2014, consequently stands dismissed. 12. The appeal and the application for stay are accordingly allowed. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.