Astami Mahato vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

After hearing the matter for some time it appears from the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal that

because of a notification dated January 5, 2005 published on June 23, 2011 enlistment of a land loser in the exempted category under the provisions of

West Bengal Regulation of Recruitment in State Government Establishments and Establishments of Public Undertakings, Statutory Bodies,

Government Companies and Legal Authorities Act, 1999 (West Bengal Act XIV of 1999) can only be done where the applicant is any of the

following:-

1) Land loser-himself/herself;

2) Wife/Husband of land loser;

3) Dependent sons/unmarried daughters of the land loser.

The writ petitioner has claimed enlistment in the said category only in the year 2013. Though she has not submitted a certificate that she is not married

it is very fairly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she is a married daughter. Since in 2013 the writ petitioner could not have obtained any

enlistment contrary to the provisions aforesaid which created the right of her enlistment and thereafter subsequent appointment if suitable in the

appropriate category after due process, it is clear that the writ petitioner has not been able to make out a legal right in respect of which this Court can

intervene.

The sixth respondent is not said to be a married daughter. Therefore, the case of the sixth respondent is not similar to that of the writ petitioner. I do

not find any hostile discrimination in the acts of the State in treating the married daughter separately from an unmarried daughter for the purpose of

deciding who shall be a member of the family of the land loser. This is because once a daughter is married and is not admitted to be residing with her

parents she is no longer a member of the family of the parents though she remains a daughter.

Mr. Bose draws my attention to the decision in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Purnima Das & Ors. reported in 2017(6) WBLR (CAL)

671 where a larger Bench of this Court has held that for compassionate appointment in the die in harness category which too is a part of the exempted

category under the same Act of 1999 married daughters and unmarried daughters had been treated similarly.

Learned advocate for the State, Mr. Narayan Bhattacharyya submits that in the exempted category itself there are several special classifications such

as die in harness, land losers, physically incapacitated, ex army man and ex census employees and in case of each the criteria of suitability have been

differently framed by the State in its wisdom. If a daughter depends upon her father’s income or father’s land whether for livelihood or

residence then the concept of a land loser including the daughter who is married would come into operation. No such allegation is made in the present

case.

Therefore, the difference between the two situations is sufficiently clear to save the State from the allegation of hostile discrimination. Even though

the name of the writ petitioner was recommended by the competent authority to the Director for enlistment, such recommendation would not be

binding on the Director in view of the above position of law. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.