Where the scheme so requires, family pension must be counted when assessing compassionate appointment eligibility.

The petitioner’s father, an approved assistant teacher, died in service on 17 May 2018.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment within the prescribed period.

After an earlier rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for a hearing, the District Inspector of Schools rejected the application again on 7 November 2023, finding that the family’s assessed monthly income exceeded the initial gross salary of Group ‘D’ staff.

The calculation included 60% of the family pension and income from other sources, producing a total of ₹26,576, against the Group ‘D’ salary threshold of ₹15,150.

The petitioner’s mother, who had been receiving the family pension, died on 26 December 2023, while the writ petition was pending.

Whether the D.I. (S.E.) lawfully applied the 2009 Rules by including the relevant portion of the family pension in assessing financial hardship.

Whether the petitioner’s mother’s death after the impugned decision required the decision to be invalidated or the petitioner’s claim to be reconsidered.

Whether the impugned decision warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Paragraph 1 of Schedule V to the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2009 permits compassionate appointment only where the family meets the prescribed financial-hardship test; for a family of up to five members, income must be below the initial gross salary of Group ‘D’ staff, calculated in accordance with the Explanation, which accounts for 40% of family pension during the specified period.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to ordinary public recruitment, intended to address immediate financial distress, and is governed by the applicable scheme rather than being a vested right.

Union of India v. Amrita Sinha confirms that family pension must be considered when the governing scheme so requires.

Under Article 226, judicial review examines the legality and reasonableness of the decision-making process; it is not an appeal on the merits.

Subsequent events do not displace the applicable scheme or, by themselves, invalidate a decision that was lawful when made.

The Court found that the D.I. (S.E.) had applied the Schedule V formula, deducted 40% of the family pension, added the family’s other monthly income, and compared the resulting figure with the prescribed Group ‘D’ salary threshold.

The resulting income exceeded that threshold, and the petitioner did not establish that the calculation was factually incorrect or perverse.

The Court rejected the challenge to the inclusion of family pension because the Rules expressly require the specified portion to be taken into account; it considered Govind Prakash Verma inapplicable in light of later authorities, including State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar.

The mother’s death occurred after the decision and did not invalidate it; moreover, the scheme did not provide for compassionate appointment based on the later death of a pensioner family member.

The Court therefore found no basis for intervention under Article 226.

The writ petition, WPA 26023 of 2023, was dismissed without costs.