Judgment : Biswanath Somadder, J. In re: CAN 991 of 2017 1. This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. 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 applicants to explain the delay in filing of the appeal. As such, the delay is condoned. 3. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly allowed. In re: MAT 76 of 2017 with CAN 992 of 2017 4. 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. 5. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 16th May, 2016, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 22210 (W) of 2015 (Anushree Chatterjee vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). 6. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition with a direction upon concerned respondent authority to immediately appoint the writ petitioner in a suitable post irrespective of any waiting list within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. 7. Identical matters came up before the Appeal Court for consideration earlier. In one of such matter, being MAT 1160 of 2017 with CAN 9537 of 2017 (The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Iman Ali Molla), a judgment and order was rendered on 11th December, 2017. Relevant portion of the said judgment and order is set out hereinbelow:- “Even a bare perusal of the impugned judgement and order reveals that the learned Single Judge – on a writ petition taken out by Iman Ali Molla – has issued a mandatory direction for his appointment on compassionate ground irrespective of any waiting list. The reason for passing such a order appears to be that the learned Single Judge was of the view that since the writ petitioner waited long enough for more than five years, he was not required to wait any further. 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. 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 & Anr. Vs. Shashank Goswami & Anr., reported in AIR 2012 SC 2294 . 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 & Anr. (supra). 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. In the facts of the instant case as observed hereinbefore, the learned Single Judge has issued a mandatory direction for appointment of the respondent/writ petitioner on compassionate ground. Such a mandatory direction has been issued upon the Joint Secretary for immediate approval – within a certain timeframe – the appointment of the respondent/writ petitioner and further to ensure that the said appointment was made by an appropriate authority within a further period of four weeks therefrom, irrespective of any waiting list. The only reason for issuance of such mandatory direction appears to be that the respondent/writ petitioner’s recommendation was pending for more than five years. In a fact situation similar to the instant case, a Division Bench of this Court – in the case of the State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Bimal Munda (MAT 1627 of 2017 with CAN 10082 of 2017 and CAN 9388 of 2017) – on 20th November, 2017, while setting aside a similar order passed by the learned Single Judge noticed the two judgments of the Supreme Court as referred above, as well as the judgment rendered in the case of State of West Bengal & Anr. vs. Poly Dutta & Ors., reported in (2017) WBLR (Cal) 516 = 2017 (2) CHN (Cal) 683. Relevant portion of the judgment and order rendered by the Division Bench in Bimal Munda’s case is quoted below: - “In a fact situation similar to the instant case, a Division Bench of this Court – in the case of the State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Goutam Dalal – (MAT 1159 of 2017 with CAN 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 Anr. vs. Poly Dutta & Ors., reported in (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 take in into consideration. The Division Bench also took notice of another judgment of this Court rendered in the case of State of West Bengal and Anr. vs. Poly Dutta & Ors., reported in (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 take in into consideration. 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. 26418 (W) of 2014, consequently stands dismissed. The appeal and the application for stay are accordingly allowed.” As such, in the facts of the instant case also, we do not have any hesitation to observe that the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.” 8. Since the facts of the instant case are identical to the judgment and order referred above, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 9. The appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of accordingly. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties.