Compassionate Appointment Helps Tide Over ‘Sudden Crisis’: Calcutta HC Denies Daughter’s Plea For Appointment 13 Yrs After Father’s Death

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a plea by the writ petitioner, who challenged an order from the Chairman/Secretary, District Primary School Council, Dakshin Dinajpur (“Chairman’”), denying her compassionate appointment upon the passing of her father, who died-in-service in 2010.

In upholding the order passed by the Chairman, a single-bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf observed:

This Court does not find any infirmity with the order passed by the Chairman dated December 15, 2017, because not only was petitioner no.1 a minor of 14 years of age on the date of death of her father, but the two-year application period had also expired for petitioner no.1 after she attained the age of majority. It is settled law that compassionate appointment is not a right, rather an exception to Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India wherein the same must be provided in terms of the rules framed for such an appointment.

These observations came in a plea by a daughter seeking appointment as a primary teacher on compassionate grounds after the death of her father on November 1, 2010 who was a Primary Teacher at Kochpara, F.P. School in Dakshin Dinajpur.

The petitioner no. 1 was of 14 years of age at the time of the date of death of her father. Her mother, the petitioner no.2 sought compassionate appointment under the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2001 (‘2001 Rules’), for the first time in December 2011 when the petitioner no 1 was still a minor.

The initial request was not acted upon, and the daughter subsequently made her own representation in December 2014, seeking compassionate appointment.

An earlier plea by the daughter was dismissed by the Calcutta High Court without going into the merits of the case and by directing the respondent authority to consider her case for compassionate appointment.

Subsequently, the Chairman gave a reasoned order in December 2017 which rejected the prayer of the daughter for compassionate appointment on the grounds that she was a minor at the time of the initial application made by her mother and that her application for compassionate appointment, made in 2014, had exceeded the two-year time limit stipulated in a notification by the Government of West Bengal, School Education Department.

Court denied the petitioner the benefit of compassionate appointment while referring to the decision in Ipsita Chakrabarti Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2018 (3) CHN (CAL) 472 and (2018) 2 CAL LT 177 (HC) which laid down four salient principles pertaining to compassionate appointment:

1. Appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process.
2. The right of a dependent of an employee who died in harness for compassionate appointment is based on the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer and there is no right to claim compassionate appointment on any other ground apart from the above scheme conferred by the employer.
3. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seems to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion.
4. Compassionate appointment has to be exercised only in warranting situations and circumstances existing in granting appointment and guiding factors should be financial condition of the family.

Court said one must not lose sight of the object of compassionate appointment - to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis.

It was held that compassionate appointment must always take place “within the rules” and that in the present case, with the petitioner being a minor at the time of her father’s death, and later having applied only after the two-year window for compassionate appointment had elapsed, the “exception” could not be carved out in her favour.

In conclusion the Court observed that the objective of compassionate appointment was to assist the family of the deceased who face a sudden financial crisis due to the death of the sole earning family member, in lieu of the rules established.

It concluded that such a situation was not true for the present case, since the petitioner’s father passed away in 2010, and after 13 years, the petitioners no longer had the financial exigency needed for seeking compassionate appointment.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 295

Case: Ankita Saha & Anr. V The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No: WPA 12287 of 2019

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment