Sheuli Roy Chowdhury (Banerjee) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2174 Cal

S/L 8
19.03.2021
Court No.26
SD
                                WPA 5999 of 2021
                            (Via Video Conference)

                          Sheuli Roy Chowdhury (Banerjee)
                                         Vs.
                           The State of West Bengal & Ors.

              Ms. Mousumi Bhowal
                                                    ... for the Petitioner.
              Ms. Kakali Samajpaty
                                                       ... for the State.
              Mr. Kanak Kiran Bandyopadhyay
                                                       ... for the WBCSSC.

                    This is an application under Article 226 of the

              Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved

              by an order dated February 27, 2020 passed by the District

              Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Paschim Medinipur rejecting the

              prayer for compassionate appointment on the ground that

              the petitioner was a married daughter of the deceased

              employee.

                    In light of the judgment in Purnima Deb vs. State

              of West Bengal reported in 2017 (4) CHN (Cal) 362,

              married daughter cannot be excluded simpliciter because of

              the fact of her marriage. The main point to be looked into

              that of dependency of the marriage daughter upon the

              deceased employee.     Subsequently, Government has also

              come out with an amendment wherein married daughters

              are now included within the sphere of persons who get

              compassionate appointment. However, it is clear from the

              order passed by the District Inspector of Schools that he has
                                2




passed this order contrary to the rules in existence.

Accordingly, this impugned order is quashed and set aside.

       Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that

this matter requires enquiry as 'No Objection' has been given

by the mother and brother of the petitioner. She further

submits that proper application has not been made in the

present case. Accordingly, the authorities may direct the

petitioner to make a proper application within a fixed time

and upon such application being made, the authorities are

directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner

and thereafter pass a reasoned order in this matter.

       Counsel for the State also submits that this matter be

referred to the Commissioner of School Education without a

final adjudication.

       Accordingly, the Commissioner of School Education

being the respondent no.2 herein is directed to pass a

reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from date.

The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the

authorities for providing any further documents that may be

required.

With these above observations and directions, this

writ petition stands disposed of.

Since, no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for

the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have

not been admitted by the respondents.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all

necessary formalities.

(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)